Category global

Post navigation

This is a well researched essay and worth the time to read! It will make you think and possibly scare the complacency out of you! It is posted at – http://www.wolkeworks.com/I_Stand_With_You.html where there are many other articles worth reading.

The photos are my additions.

“Obama’s victory was more than a progressive move; it was a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle. Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of a mole who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. This is the old ‘revolutionary mole’ not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through.” – Frank Chapman of the Communist Party of the USA’s newspaper, People’s Weekly World on January 12, 2008 after Obama’s Iowa Caucus victory.
Just who is Barack Hussein Obama? Is he just another “progressive” member of the Democratic Party? Or could he be something worse, a conscious agent of a foreign power? Does he have a secret agenda to harm the United States? Or is he simply someone whose well- meaning policies have turned out to be antithetical to the interests of the American people? What follows is necessarily speculative, but if you connect the dots, the case should do more than raise eyebrows.
If you look at the rise of Barack Obama from obscure community organizer to President of the United States you have to be amazed at the speed in which he climbed to the heights of power and the total lack of qualifications he exhibited before attaining the highest office. You also have to wonder about the people in his past and their associations.
As many people know by now, Obama was the product of Stanley Ann Dunham, a girl who was far left in her politics and somehow enamored with dark skin men who were anti-American. Her parents were apparently also far left anti-Americans and they moved to a suburb of Seattle, Washington, so that their young girl could attend Mercer Island High School. It was run by a communist who also ran the “little red church on the hill”, a Unitarian church that the Dunham family attended.
Dunham allegedly married Barack Obama, Sr., a student from Kenya whom she met in Russian classes at the University of Hawaii. About five months after their alleged marriage (there are no records of it available), Stanley Ann gave birth to the man we know as Barack
￼ ￼ ￼ ￼ ￼ ￼ ￼ ￼ ￼ ￼ ￼ ￼ ￼ ￼ ￼ ￼ ￼ ￼ ￼ ￼ ￼ ￼ ￼ ￼ ￼ ￼ ￼ ￼
The Psychopath?
Hussein Obama, but who was called Barry in his youth. The two, Stanley and Barack Sr., never lived together and almost immediately after giving birth, Stanley Ann left to attend the University of Washington in Seattle. Obama, Sr., left to attend Harvard University not too long after that. So young Obama never saw his father until he was ten years old in 1971 and that was a short visit. Meanwhile, Stanley Ann found another third world, leftist husband, Lolo Soetoro, from Indonesia and went to Jakarta to live with him, taking along young Barry. During his stint in Indonesia, Barry attended a school where he was listed as a Muslim and where he liked to attend Koran classes. One of his former classmates describes him then as a devout Muslim.
In any case, when Lolo started to work for an American oil company and actually became pro-American, Stanley Ann sent young Barack back to Hawaii to ensure he would be under the guidance of her appropriately anti-American parents.
In due course, Barry’s grandfather, also named Stanley Dunham, decided that the young lad needed a black male role model and mentor and sent the 10 year old to be guided by his friend, Frank Marshall Davis, a black member of the Communist Party, poet, pornographer, bisexual pedophile and sexual predator. Barry remained under the influence of Davis until he left for college at age 18.
There are reasons to believe that Davis may have actually been Obama’s father. In one of his books, Davis describes a young white girl named Ann as one of his frequent sex partners, and Obama looks more like Davis than he does Barack, Sr. (For one thing, Obama has a lot of facial skin tags as did Davis.) Likewise, Davis had pictures of a nude girl that closely resemble Stanley Ann, although who she actually was has not been proven. Perhaps that’s the reason Barack Obama, Sr., never showed that much interest in his son but Davis did. According to one theory, Barack Sr. was allegedly persuaded to provide a name for the infant in return for extending his visa in the United States. In any case, young Obama was handed over to Davis for mentoring.
It was during this period that Barry attended an elite Honolulu private school, Punahou, noted for its international students and, according to some, an anti-American ideology. Considering that Obama was schooled as a Muslim in Indonesia and at an international school during his formative years, where and when was he taught to think of himself as an American?
While at Punahou, he started out well but soon saw his academic achievements deteriorate, possibly due to his hanging out with the “Choom gang”, a sort of marijuana smokers club. That was not surprising since Davis was heavily into drinking and drug use. What other influences Davis had on young Obama are not readily apparent, although since Davis was into various sexual perversions, perhaps he influenced the child’s views on sexuality. This was a man who took the young boy to bars to drink booze, smoke pot, and watch pornographic cartoons being projected on the walls. Young Obama spent a lot of his youth doing drugs and drinking booze. Moreover, in a poem Obama wrote about Davis, he mentioned the amber stain they both had on their shorts. Was this a reference to a sexual relationship? In later life, various people would accuse Obama of being bisexual and a member of a gay men’s club in Chicago. One thing we can be certain of is that young Barry was indoctrinated with communism by Davis and probably his grandfather, Stanley.

Barry went to Occidental College, noted as the Moscow of California, where he was described by one of his associates at the time, Jim Drew, as not just sympathetic to communism, but an ardent communist revolutionary. This is when he changed his name to Barack Hussein Obama even though he had probably been adopted in Indonesia as Barry Soetoro and may well have been a citizen of that country. His roommates and friends there included Pakistanis Wahid Hamid and Mohamed Hasan Chandoo. After Occidental, Obama allegedly made a trip to Pakistan in 1981.
What’s interesting is that Obama never mentioned this Pakistan trip in either of his autobiographies, nor did he apparently mention it to anyone else until telling the press in April 2008 that he knew more about foreign policy than John McCain and Hillary Clinton because he had visited Pakistan and knew the difference between Sunni and Shia Muslims. (That was an astoundingly arrogant and foolish remark, but that’s Obama.) Apparently, Obama didn’t want the trip to be known, which is quite suspicious. So why mention it then? Perhaps because the previous month, March 2008, three contract employees at the State Department were caught looking at Obama, McCain and Hillary Clinton’s passports. The firm one of the employees worked for, Analysis Corp., was headed by John O. Brennan who later became Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counter-TerrorismandeventuallyheadoftheCIA. Sowhyhad Obama never mentioned the trip to Pakistan? And why did he mention it just after someone who worked for Brennan was caught looking at his passport file? Were McCain and Clinton included just to confuse who the real target was?
One possibility is that the passport was being altered by the employee either to add, remove or replace information. What if the reason Obama never mentioned Pakistan is that he never actually went to Pakistan? All we have is Obama’s word for it that he visited Pakistan since his passport is not available. What if he went somewhere else in 1981? What if he went to the Soviet Union or some other east bloc country for training and that information had to be expunged and replaced by a cover story? If you look at the trade craft of Soviet moles and American traitors, they typically go overseas to meet their KGB handlers for instructions, which is why overseas travel is carefully scrutinized by those granting security clearances. Obama would never qualify for a security clearance, given his background and unexplained overseas travel.
Interestingly, Obama has gone overseas just before each major change in his life. And those changes were step ups in his status and ambition. In 1981, it was just before transferring from Occidental to Columbia. In 1988, he went to Europe and Kenya for several weeks just before heading to Harvard Law School. In 2006, he visited Kenya as a senator just before announcing his candidacy for president. And in 2008, he toured Europe as a candidate just before being elected president.
Is there a reason to suspect Obama may have become a mole? Aside from his communist revolutionary beliefs at the time, consider that two years after graduating from Columbia in New York City, Obama moved to Chicago in 1985, the previous home of his mentor Frank Marshall Davis, to become a community organizer. Obama’s ostensible reason for moving to Chicago was that he was inspired, he said, by the election of Harold Washington as mayor of that city. Washington was someone with close connections to the Communist Party and other socialist groups who backed him during his candidacy. So Obama said he applied for a job as community organizer with the Developing Communities Project.
Davis, who worked for most of his life in Chicago, was a member of the Communist Party USA, an organization actually funded from Moscow until 1989. In fact, the Communist Party USA was founded in Chicago back in 1919 and that city still has a very active Marxist culture. With the fall of the Soviet Union and the opening of KGB records, we know that some of the Chicago Communists were actually on Moscow’s payroll as agents of influence. And we also know that the Communist Party USA branch in Hawaii when Davis was living there was actually run from Moscow. From his time in Chicago, Davis always followed the propaganda line from Moscow in his writings and newspaper columns, no matter how ridiculous.
Presumably, then, he was a Soviet agent. Suppose Obama was groomed by Davis from youth to become a mole? Suppose that Davis told Moscow about his young charge, a bright kid who was so damaged by abandonment, so desperate to be important, and so lacking in moral upbringing as to be perfectly pliable? And even more important, the kid was already brainwashed to be a communist.
This was a kid who asked his schoolmates whether they would rather be a wealthy businessman, a military general or president of the United States. And when one answered businessman and the other military general, Obama told them he’d rather be president because the military general would protect him and the businessman would give him money. This was a kid who was seriously conflicted about his racial identity and finally decided he was black, suggesting that his mother and grandparent’s whiteness was associated with negative emotions of worthlessness and abandonment, while Davis’s black skin was associated with acceptance. It’s also probably how he became extraordinarily narcissistic. Obama is someone who has serious psychological issues.
After returning from his trip to Pakistan or wherever it was he actually went, Barack transferred to Columbia University, another far left institution, in New York after two years at Occidental, presumably under either an affirmative action or foreign student program since it’s unlikely Barack’s grades were stellar at Occidental where he admits he didn’t really study. According to one person who was at Columbia at the same time as Obama, that university very seldom accepted transfers from other schools and those were only the cream of the crop. So why Obama? Did someone among the school’s many communist administrators and professors arrange it under instructions from Moscow?
At this time, Obama said his ambition while at Columbia was to be a novelist, although if he ever wrote anything fiction, aside from some bad poetry, it hasn’t been disclosed. Considering the acclaim his writing skills for “Dreams From My Father” garnered, you’d think there would be some fictional works the would-be novelist wrote. But “Dreams From My Father” is sheer poetry and there’s nothing Obama has ever written (and there’s actually not much that he has written at all) even close to it in style or technical brilliance. Obama’s poetry is nothing exceptional, for example, and his essays are clunkers. It’s widely believed that Bill Ayers wrote the book since it contains scenes and depictions found in Ayers’ own stories. Moreover, Ayers keeps insisting in public that he actually wrote “Dreams From My Father” and jokes that if anyone can prove it he’ll split the royalties. Maybe that’s why Obama actually majored in political science and international relations.

Why Ayers would write an autobiography for Obama isn’t known, but clearly, it was that book that convinced many people that Obama is a genius despite no other accomplishments. It may be that if Obama was being groomed for high office, Ayers was recruited by Moscow to provide Obama with a stellar biography and reputation.
The reason for going to Columbia is unclear, but as a hotbed of Marxism, perhaps that attracted Barack. Or it could be that his Soviet handlers decided he needed better credentials for future work and Columbia is prestigious enough. At Columbia, it seems few people can remember knowing Barack Obama. We do know he lived off campus with Pakistani roommate Sohale Siddiqi just a few blocks from where Bill Ayers lived at the time and that he attended socialist conferences at Cooper Union. Among his professors that later became close to him at Columbia we can count Khalid Rashidi, a pro- Palestinian activist. Perhaps it’s Obama’s upbringing as a Muslim in Indonesia that attracted him to foreign Muslim friends and led to sympathy for Islamic causes.
In 1985, then, Obama arrived in Chicago where he came to work with the communist/socialist network. His entre was probably Frank Marshall Davis, who apparently knew most of the people who would eventually help young Obama. But Obama’s immediate reason for being in Chicago, as previously indicated, was to become director of Developing Communities Project, a church-based community organizing group that he made a separate non-profit in 1986. While working for them, he sent a letter to Chicago mayor Harold Washington in 1987 asking for an endorsement for his organization. He listed as members of his board such people as Black (third world, actually) Liberation Theologists Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger, as well as John Ayers, the brother of unrepentant terrorist, Bill Ayers. Obama also worked for the Gamaliel Foundation as a “consultant and trainer” in the tactics of Saul “The Red” Alinsky, the author of “Rules for Radicals” whose book is dedicated to Lucifer. On the board of Gamaliel was professor John L. McKnight, who taught Obama Alinsky tactics probably starting in 1982 when Obama was still at Columbia and an intern for Gamaliel. (McKnight’s organization recruited 20 interns in 1982 for staffing in several cities, including New York.)
In his 1995 memoir, Obama said he wanted to go to Harvard Law School to “learn power’s currency in all its intricacy,” with the goal of “making large-scale change” as a national politician. So Obama approached McKnight to write a letter of recommendation, which he did. Obama, who McKnight admitted was a poor student, also probably got letters of recommendation from Newton Minow (JFK’s head of the FCC) who was on the board of trustees at Northwestern University where McKnight was teaching, and whose daughter, Martha, was dean of Harvard Law School. Minow was also a senior lawyer at Sidley Austin law firm where Obama did internships at Martha’s recommendation. Was sending Obama to that law firm a way to connect him with his future handler, Valerie Jarrett? Jarrett did work there at the time. Another letter of recommendation probably came from Thomas Ayers, the father of William Ayers, who was also on the board of trustees with Minow. Why were all these people so interested in helping a man with no particular accomplishments, even academically, into Harvard Law?
The wealthy Thomas Ayers, CEO of Consolidated Edison and sometimes called the Godfather of Chicago Politics, may have helped finance Obama’s education. According to Thomas Ayers’ mailman, Allen Hulton, he met young Obama at the home of Thomas Ayers. “He was very polite, dressed nicely, but informally – slacks and a dress shirt – and he spoke with no accent. Immediately this young black man entered into a conversation with me. He told me he had taken the train out from Chicago and had come to thank the Ayers family personally for having helped him with his education. “Hulton remembers asking the young man what his plans were for the future. “He looked at me and told me he was going to be president of the United States,” Hulton says. “There was a little bit of a grin on his face when he said it – he sounded sure of himself, but not arrogant. I know how people will say things because they have an ambition, but it did not come across that way,” Hulton says. “It came across as if this young black male was telling me he was going to be president, almost as if it were a
statement of a scientific fact that had already been predetermined, as if his being president has already been pre-arranged.”
Hulton also said that Thomas Ayers once gave him a lecture on how the working man was being exploited by rich capitalists. Was Thomas Ayers a Marxist? It certainly seems so. Why did Thomas Ayers take an interest in Barack Obama? Probably because one of Ayers’ close friends was the ubiquitous Frank Marshall Davis. It seems reasonable that Davis recommended Obama to Ayers and Ayers probably introduced Obama to his son, William, the Marxist terrorist.
In 1988 Obama left to attend Harvard Law School but returned to Chicago to work at Sidley Austin law firm in the summer 1989 where Valerie Jarrett introduced him to Michelle Robinson, his immediate boss who later became his wife. Not surprisingly, Jarrett’s maternal grandfather, Robert Rochon Taylor, was a Communist Party member and friend of Frank Marshall Davis. Her father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett, was also a communist and friend of Davis’s who apparently knew Khalid al-Mansour, formerly known as Donald Warden. Warden was a radical black power advocate and Marxist who was one of the “Chicago Eight” responsible for rioting during the 1968 Chicago Democratic Party convention.
Vernon Jarrett wrote an article in 1979 about al-Mansour, reporting that al-Mansour was asking rich Arabs to fund the education of black American kids, presumably to help induce them to become Muslims. So, perhaps Davis also prevailed upon his friend Vernon Jarrett to contact al-Mansour and recommend Obama as a candidate for that educational funding, especially since Obama was schooled in Islam while in Indonesia and his alleged Kenyan father’s family were Muslims. Sutton Percy, a New Yorker connected to Marxists there, said that al-Mansour asked him to write a letter of recommendation for Obama to Harvard Law, which Sutton did. Interestingly, in 1979, Obama was in Chicago. Did he meet with Vernon Jarrett or al- Mansour? My guess is that he did.
After law school, Valerie Jarrett initially worked for Mayor Harold Washington, another of Chicago’s communist officials who stocked his administration with communists and socialists. It was while she worked for Washington that she first hired Michelle Robinson who later married Barack Obama.
In 1991 Obama returned to Chicago after getting his law degree. He worked for ACORN’s Project Vote, and helped to elect another Chicago communist, Carol Moseley Braun, to the US Senate. In 1994, Obama became chief of staff for Alice Palmer in her run for a Congressional seat. Palmer was a communist and probably a paid agent of influence for the Soviet Union back in the 1980’s. In a 1995 party at the house of Bill Ayers to introduce Barack Obama’s entre into politics, Palmer anointed Obama as her heir to the Illinois Senate seat she was vacating. When Palmer’s Congressional bid fizzled, she wanted her old Illinois Senate seat back but Obama refused and had her disqualified on the ballot. Palmer, who fell out with Obama after that, later joined the socialist New Party of which Obama was also a member.
When Obama finally reached the White House, his closest advisor was Valerie Jarrett, who is still there and considered by some to be the actual power behind the throne who acts as Obama’s eyes and ears and, some say, brain. Perhaps her real mission is to keep an eye on Obama and direct policy. The other main advisor was David Axelrod who decamped for Chicago to run Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. Interestingly, Axelrod was mentored and taught politics by a member of the Communist Party USA, David Canter, who was probably a paid agent of the Soviet Union. Canter’s father Harry, was a committed communist who even moved his family to Moscow. When he returned to America he came to Chicago and worked, as you might have guessed, with Frank Marshall Davis.
So, to put it together, young Obama was more than likely turned into a communist by his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, and his family, and then sent to Occidental, known for its far left climate. Sometime during this period, Obama was probably officially recruited by the Soviet KGB to be a mole. His 1981 trip abroad was probably to meet his Soviet handler and get further instructions, including what to study and who to meet at Columbia. His first connection with the Chicago communist network was by applying for an internship with Gamaliel Foundation and so it was natural for Obama to relocate to the old home of his mentor and start making connections with radical Marxists.

In 1988 he was probably instructed to go to law school, presumably the best that would accept him, and Davis made sure his contacts wrote letters of recommendation. That the daughter of Thomas Ayers was dean of Harvard Law probably made him a shoo-in even if he didn’t have distinguished grades at Columbia. Before going to Harvard, Obama went overseas again and likely met his Soviet handler for further instructions, including that he should enter politics and possibly run for president. Ayers and the Saudis probably financed Obama’s time at Harvard.
Obama’s connection with the Saudis, Palestinians and other Muslims was also probably deemed a plus by the Soviets and one of the benefits of recruiting him. Some people think Obama is a closet Muslim while others think he’s an atheist who joined the Rev. Wright’s church to gain “street cred.” But being so supportive of Islam provides cover since Obama is seen as a Muslim tool, not that of the Russians.
It was Martha Minow who greased Obama’s way into the Sidley Austin law firm where her father was employed and which was a hot bed of leftist sympathizers, including Bernadine Dohrn, the terrorist wife of William Ayers. First year law students virtually never get to intern at major law firms. While at that law firm, Jarrett probably became his American handler. (It would be interesting to see when and where Jarrett went overseas for vacations or business.) It’s also possible that Michelle Robinson was recruited to be his cover, to provide a respectable family image despite his alleged gay sex life and drug use, in return for her riding his coattails into the final objective, the White House. In fact, when Obama lost his first bid to be a congressman, she reportedly almost left him.
After graduation from law school, Obama returned again to Chicago and started his political activities, working on the campaigns of various communists or socialists, until he gained enough experience and “street cred” among the city’s black south side population to enter politics himself. He went up the political ladder as fast as possible, from being elected state senator in 1997 to being elected United States senator in 2004 (aided when Carol Mosely Braun stepped aside for him). In 2004, he gave an impressive speech at the Democratic Party convention which fueled speculation that he might be presidential timber. But he wisely said he wasn’t ready. In fact, on November 8, 2004, after his election as senator, Obama said, “You know, I am a believer in knowing what you’re doing when you apply for a job. And I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now, before having served a day in the Senate. Now there are some people who might be comfortable with that, but I’m not one of those people.” However, that reticence to run for the presidency lasted until February 2007, when he announced his candidacy for president after having served only two years as a senator.
In 2005, Obama was adopted as a protege by Republican senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, one of the few Repubicans who was a creature of the fascist manipulator George Soros. Lugar took Obama on an arms control inspection trip to Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan in 2005. No doubt there were plenty of opportunities to meet with Russian handlers (fascists now, not communists) including when the American party was detained for several hours for no good reason and Obama was confined alone to a room in the airport. In 2006, Obama went abroad again, to Kenya, and perhaps met again with a Russian handler.
Did his Russian handlers push him into aggressively pursuing the office despite his misgivings? Did Obama really expect to win the nomination then? Or was it a Russian ploy to “prove” that a racist America would never consider a black man for president and thereby embarrass us.? Is that why Michelle Obama, surprised that her husband was winning, said that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of her country? If they thought America was so bad, why make a hopeless run for president? In any case, why would the Russians want to embarrass the United States? After all, the Soviet Union disintegrated and ostensibly communism was defeated in 1991, so the Russians were supposed to be no longer a threat.
The foreign intelligence requirements of the new Russian government did not end, of course, with the demise of the Soviet Union, and the functions of the KGB still had to continue even if that organization didn’t. So the new Russian government still had the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR). One of the methods the SVR uses to obtain information and influence is through moles, that is, people who are recruited at a young age, normally using ideological indoctrination, and then groomed to enter strategically useful occupations in sensitive positions when they reach adulthood. One recent example of this was the arrest in 2010 of ten Russian agents, the so-called “Illegals Program.” The ten agents were what Russians call “sleeper agents” or moles, who were educated to pass as Americans and then insinuate themselves into useful jobs.
The present Russian government is fascist by nature and has nationalistic ambitions. It is led by President Vladimir Putin, a former KGB official. To get an idea of what the Russians intend to achieve by the use of a mole as an influence agent, and why they still want to bring down the United States, consider the textbook, “Foundations of Geopolitics” written in 1997 by Alexander Dugin, a known fascist, and General Nikolai Klokotov of the military’s General Staff. The book is very popular with Russian national security and foreign policy officials and is used as a textbook by the General Staff Academy and other educational institutions. Klokotov stated that it would serve as a “mighty ideological foundation for preparing a new military command.”
The book declares that “the battle for the world rule of [ethnic] Russians” has not ended and Russia remains “the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution.” The Eurasian Empire will be constructed “on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us.”
It also states that Russia should use its special forces, including moles, within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, by, for example, provoking “Afro-American racists.” According to the book, Russia should “introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics.”
In June 2008, Obama beat out Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic Party nomination to run for president. One month later, Obama went abroad again, this time as the party’s nominee, as if there were voters out in Germany who needed persuading to vote for him. So why go abroad to campaign? Was the trip really a ploy to meet with his Russian handlers and receive more instructions on what they expected from him as president? Is the Obama program really directed from Moscow to further the agenda outlined in “Foundations of Geopolitics” book?
If you wonder how Obama could introduce “geopolitical disorder” into the United States, consider why Van Jones, an admitted communist who was recruited by Valerie Jarrett to be Obama’s “Green Jobs” czar wanted to take over the “Occupy Wall Street” movement. If you want to know why Obama encourages illegal immigration, appoints members of the Mexican separatist group “La Raza” to his administration, and tries to stop states from enforcing the borders, consider the above goals. If you want to know why Obama has brought so many members of the Muslim Brotherhood into his administration, consider the above goals. If you want to know why Obama is so racially divisive, consider the above goals. If you want to know why Obama is trying to wreck us financially, consider the above goals. If you wonder why leftists are encouraged to be as nasty as possible towards anyone on the right, further dividing the country, consider the above goals.

As for America’s role in the world, Dugin and Klokotov’s book emphasizes that Russia must spread Anti-Americanism everywhere: “the main ‘scapegoat’ will be precisely the U.S.” What’s more, they stress the “continental Russian-Islamic alliance” which lies “at the foundation of the anti-Atlanticist strategy.” The alliance is based on the “traditional character of Russian and Islamic civilization.” The book calls Iran a key ally and uses the term “Moscow-Tehran axis.”
So, if you want to know why Obama would insult our traditional Atlantic allies, such as the United Kingdom, while supporting our enemies, such as trying to force the Hondurans to disregard their own constitution and allow their president, an ally of Venezuela’s former dictator Chavez, to remain in office past his allowed two terms, consider the above objectives. If you wonder why Obama would tell Russia’s Medvedev that he would have more flexibility to meet Russian goals after he’s reelected, consider the above objectives.
Although it hasn’t been confirmed, the Israeli Avi Lipkin (also known as Victor Mordecai) claims that on January 19, 2010 his wife Rachel, a native born Egyptian Jew, picked up a broadcast on Nile TV from Egypt. It was a round table discussion in which the Foreign Minister of Egypt, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, was quoted saying that in a one-on- one meeting with Barack Obama, our president swore to him that he was a Muslim. Gheit, who did, indeed, meet privately with Obama in 2009, continued by saying Obama told him, “I have a problem with some domestic issues. And as soon as I finish with the healthcare question you Muslims will see what I will do for Islam regarding Israel.”
So, if you wonder why Obama in conjunction with his close friend, Turkey’s president Ergogan, as well as the Saudis, have been actively supporting the overthrow of secular regimes that were cooperating with us in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and now Syria, only to replace them with Muslim Brotherhood Islamists who are our enemies and are likely to go to war with Israel eventually, consider the above Russian objectives. If you wonder why Obama let our staff in Benghazi die rather than save them, while putting out an absurd lie that it was a mob attack provoked by a movie from months before that nobody had ever seen, then realize that promoting the idea that an American movie incited the mob is a meme they were trying to create designed to make the US the scapegoat, just as in the objectives above. If you wonder why Obama didn’t support Iran’s dissidents in 2009, consider whose key ally Tehran is.
If you wonder why Obama has not supported Ukrainian dissidents fighting to prevent closer ties to Moscow in 2014, or even criticized the crackdown against regime opponents in Venezuela by Chavez’s hand-picked successor, consider what Moscow’s interests are. If you wonder why Obama is so diffident towards Muslims and indifferent if not hostile to Christians, consider whose objectives are being met.
After overthrowing the Egyptian government of Mubarak and installing the Muslim Brotherhood’s Morsi, the Egyptian people rebelled and threw them out. Likewise, Obama has been supporting Muslim terrorists who slaughter Christians in Syria as they try to overthrow the pro-Iranian regime of Assad probably at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Turkey. (Obama has yet to criticize the anti- Christian pogrom by Syria’s rebels.) But the Syrian rebels are making no headway, so Obama tried to get US military forces to intervene on behalf of the rebels until the American public objected. His latest tactic seems to be a deception. By creating the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (or the Levant), ISIS, he’s created a false enemy. His alleged solution is to arm the Free Syrian Army, which has been fighting the Syrian regime, so that they’ll fight ISIS. He proposes training them in Saudi Arabia, the very regime that has been financing the overthrow of Syria’s Assad, so that they’ll go after ISIS instead. But there’s no reason to believe the Free Syrian Army, which is composed of Islamists such as al-Qa’ida and the Muslim Brotherhood, will ignore Syria and battle fellow Muslims. Instead, they are likely to combine with ISIS and battle with US supplied arms.
As previously indicated, Obama is a close friend of Turkey’s President Erdogan, an Islamist whose party has pushed that country from being secular into embracing Islam as policy. Initially, Obama, Erdogan, the Saudis and probably George Soros were working together against Russia’s unofficial ally, Iran, but it appears that Obama has betrayed the Saudis, much to their fury, by making a deal with Iran to let them have a nuclear weapons program. Moreover, Turkey’s intelligence service betrayed Iranian dissidents to Tehran who were providing intelligence on Iran’s nuclear program. So, Obama and Turkey are now, along with the Russians, in bed with Iran. Why? Possibly because their program to overthrow Syria and replace Assad with a Sunni Islamic Brotherhood regime is failing, and Egypt is no longer an ally against Israel that it was under Morsi. So now, the only option to destroy Israel is nuclear and for that, they need Iran.
What else could Obama do for the Russians? While at Columbia, Obama wrote an article for a newspaper and also a class paper on nuclear disarmament, blaming the arms race entirely on the United States. Interestingly, nuclear disarmament of the West was a prime objective of the Soviet Union at the time. Nuclear disarmament is still one of Obama’s main interests and he’s done much to reduce the size of the American arsenal if not that of the Russians. According to President Obama, the United States has a moral obligation to disarm as an example to the rest of the world. His 2010 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty calls for the US to reduce our number of nuclear weapons to about 1550 while also agreeing not to create a missile defense shield in eastern Europe. The Russians must be very pleased.
As of 2013, he’s trying to reduce the number of nuclear weapons even more, to less than a thousand. American weapons, that is. The Russians are actually allowed to build more nuclear weapons since they say they have less than 1550 nuclear weapons and are busy modernizing their arsenal, something we’re not doing. If this sounds like an ideal situation for the Russians, Obama has given the Defense Department orders to plan on reducing our nuclear arsenal even further, down to 300 weapons. Bear in mind that even if you could get to a world where everyone lacked nuclear weapons and couldn’t build them, even the Chinese, Pakistanis, North Koreans, Israelis and Iranians, that would only make the world safe for large-scale conventional war.
Obama has also been firing and replacing flag-ranked officers in unprecedented numbers, leading some to believe that he’s putting his own compliant officers in key positions based on their willingness to open fire on Americans. Some of these key officers were responsible for America’s strategic nuclear forces. What’s more, many Air Force personnel manning the ICBM silos have been accused of various crimes and relieved as a result. Note that all of these people had to obtain a top secret clearance as a result of a comprehensive background investigation. How is it so many are deemed corrupt? Is Obama rendering our nuclear retaliatory capability prostrate?
In addition, he’s stopped several weapons programs such as the Tomahawk Cruise Missile and the Hellfire anti-personnel missiles, as well as drastically reduced the size of the Navy and the number of Army personnel. But he’s also allowed and encouraged illegal aliens to join America’s services at the same time. It should be obvious that Obama is striving to degrade America’s military, which works to the advantage of the Russians.
In America, Obama has been working to undermine the Constitution as he rules by the fiat of executive orders and unilaterally changing laws and deciding which ones to enforce. His economic policies of driving up government debt by many trillions of dollars and creating a welfare state have the earmarks of a Cloward-Piven strategy. (Cloward and Piven devised a plan to bankrupt New York by enlisting as many people as possible to go on welfare. The idea was to destroy the economy and replace it with a socialist state. In fact, they did manage to bankrupt New York City as a result.)
Obama is also working to bring vast numbers of Middle Eastern people into America without even vetting them. Many are likely to be terrorists and many have disappeared once they arrive in this country. He has created the crisis on the border with the massive wave of Central American’s entering this country along the Rio Grande in Texas. Many are vicious gang members and many are sick with a variety of dangerous diseases. Once inside this country, these dangerous people are shipped to locations the administration won’t disclose or simply let loose. It may be that the spread of the severe respiratory Enterovirus D68 that has polio-like symptoms is being spread by Central American children.
In October 2014, America had its first Ebola victim, so it may get much worse. The form of Ebola is far more contagious than previous strains and some believe it may be a weaponized version since the US government has a patent on it. What’s more, Disaster Response Teams reportedly were told months in advance that there would be a disaster in the coming October that would overwhelm EMT and Hospitals. Perhaps that’s true since the administration ordered 160,000 Hazmat suits. What else do we know? Obama put the Center for Disease Control directly under the White House. He also gutted quarantine rules that would help prevent pandemics from entering this country. So, what are the odds that Obama is part of a plot to ravage this country’s population?
If you wanted to allow terrorists into America carrying dirty bombs or chemical weapons, leaving the border unguarded or preventing Border Patrol Agents from defending themselves against assaults would also be s. In fact, that’s being done since Border Patrol personnel are being diverted to Texas. Meanwhile, not only are Central Americans flooding in, but reports indicate a wide variety of other nationalities are joining them, including Islamists. Interestingly, the Russian Mafia is said to be in charge in Mexico. Presumably, they’re coordinating with Mexican drug gangs and it may be that Putin is behind the plan. Imagine what would happen if America were destroyed by several plagues, such as Ebola or some exotic disease, along with attacks by terrorists. I suspect that, too, is part of the Russian’s plan that Obama appears to be supporting.
The scandals associated with Obama are also an indication of his contempt for America. He directed the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to not grant tax free status to conservative groups and Obama’s critics are being audited. The National Security Agency (NSA) is now monitoring virtually all communications by Americans in this country, which used to be illegal. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is sending monitors into news rooms to see how they devise editorial policy. Obama, under the Fast and Furious program, has sent thousands of firearms to Mexican drug cartels. Then there’s the Benghazi debacle which looks more and more like a plot to ship American weapons from Libya to Syria that was intercepted by Hamas.
Obama has also been laying the ground work to create a martial law crackdown on right wing opponents. His Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been buying billions of rounds of ammunition, giving away armored vehicles to police forces, buying armored check point stations and thousands of automatic weapons. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has contracted to build “refugee” camps that resemble prisons with inward facing barbed- wire fences. The Army has a field manual that directs how to run such a camp, including political indoctrination and keeping track of inmates by social security number. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has provisions for the indefinite detention of American citizens in such camps under any pretext. Obama’s executive orders allow him to seize control of all utilities and transportation in this country even in time of peace. The Army and DHS have been practicing urban warfare exercises within large American cities and have recently constructed a mock US city to practice on. Army exercises and manuals stress that the terrorists are likely to be those who want to uphold the Constitution and display other conservative values. Clearly, something sinister is up.

Obama appears to be deliberately instituting a fascist regime in America. Fascism is a way station on the road from Capitalism to Communism. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is wrecking the economy, sowing chaos in the health care industry, adding to debt, depriving people of insurance or driving up their costs drastically, throwing people out of work and putting one-sixth of the US economy directly under the thumb of the government. And it’s not by nationalizing the healthcare industry, it’s by micromanaging it. That’s the difference between socialism and fascism. When the government directly takes over the healthcare industry as the single payer, then it will be socialized medicine. Until then, it’s fascist medicine.
In the end, we still don’t know who Obama really is. His birth certificate is a proven fraud. His draft card is clearly a fake. His social security numbers (he has many) are from a state he never lived in. His academic, government and health records are all sealed and he has spent millions to ensure they can’t be opened. Isn’t it possible, if not probable, that Obama is a mole?
Obama was famously overheard on a hot mic when he told Russia’s then President Medvedev (he was holding the spot for Vladimir Putin who was Prime Minister since Putin, Russia’s real boss, couldn’t run for president again under the Russian constitution) that he needed more space to solve the missile defense issue and that he would be more flexible after his next and last election (in 2012). Medvedev said, “I will transmit this information to Vladimir and I stand with you.” The press has largely ignored the familiar use of Vladimir rather than saying “Putin” or even just “the prime minister”, but more importantly, they’ve also failed to comment on why Medvedev would say, “I stand with you.” Doesn’t that imply that Medvedev knows Obama stands with him?
Now then, if you want to know how Russia could ever achieve the objective, “strategic control of the USA”, consider why they would put a mole in the White House.
By the way, as I usually do, I asked the universe for a sign as to whether this hypothesis is correct. Later that evening, I was walking past the TV as my wife was watching NCIS. I was taken aback when I heard a black character on the show state that he wasn’t really an American. He was from Somalia and was trained by the Soviets in Russia to become an American mole. He said the Russians dropped him off from a submarine near Seattle. I presume the producers of the show were hinting at Obama or using him as a model, but I was amazed at the timing of when and how I saw it.

There are many documented false flag attacks, where a government carries out a terror attack … and then falsely blames its enemy for political purposes.
In the following 42 instances, officials in the government which carried out the attack (or seriously proposed an attack) admits to it, either orally or in writing:
(1) Japanese troops set off a small explosion on a train track in 1931, and falsely blamed it on China in order to justify an invasion of Manchuria. This is known as the “Mukden Incident” or the “Manchurian Incident”. The Tokyo International Military Tribunal found: “Several of the participators in the plan, including Hashimoto [a high-ranking Japanese army officer], have on various occasionsadmitted their part in the plot and have stated that the object of the ‘Incident’ was to afford an excuse for the occupation of Manchuria by the Kwantung Army ….” And see this.
￼

(2) A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland.
(3) Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building in 1933, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson.
(4) Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union’s Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939 – while blaming the attack on Finland – as a basis for launching the “Winter War” against Finland. Russian president Boris Yeltsin agreed that Russia had been the aggressor in the Winter War.
(5) The Russian Parliament, current Russian president Putin and former Soviet leader Gorbachev all admit that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin ordered his secret police to execute 22,000 Polish army officers and civilians in 1940, and falsely blame it on the Nazis.
(6) The British government admits that – between 1946 and 1948 – it bombed 5 ships carrying Jews attempting to flee the Holocaust to seek safety in Palestine, set up a fake group called “Defenders of Arab Palestine”, and then had the psuedo-group falsely claim responsibility for the bombings (and seethis, this and this).
(7) Israel admits that in 1954, an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this).
(8) The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister.
(9) The Turkish Prime Minister admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece – also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey – and blamed it on Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence.
(10) The British Prime Minister admitted to his defense secretary that he and American president Dwight Eisenhower approved a plan in 1957 to carry out attacks in Syria and blame it on the Syrian government as a way to effect regime change.
(11) The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: “You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security” (and see this) (Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred). And watch this BBC special. They also allegedly carried out terror attacks in France, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the UK, and other countries.
(12) In 1960, American Senator George Smathers suggested that the U.S. launch “a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro]“.
(13) Official State Department documents show that, in 1961, the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high- level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals.
(14) As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in 1962, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.
(15) In 1963, the U.S. Department of Defense wrote a paper promoting attacks on nations within the Organization of American States – such as Trinidad-Tobago or Jamaica – and then falsely blaming them on Cuba.
(16) The U.S. Department of Defense even suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: “The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro’s subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on Guantanamo.”
(17) The NSA admits that it lied about what really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 … manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired on a U.S. ship so as to create a false justification for the Vietnam war.
(18) A U.S. Congressional committee admitted that – as part of its “Cointelpro” campaign – the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists.
(19) A top Turkish general admitted that Turkish forces burned down a mosque on Cyprus in the 1970s and blamed it on their enemy. He explained: “In Special War, certain acts of sabotage are staged and blamed on the enemy to increase public resistance. We did this on Cyprus; we even burnt down a mosque.” In response to the surprised correspondent’s incredulous look the general said, “I am giving an example”.
(20) The German government admitted (and see this) that, in 1978, the German secret service detonated a bomb in the outer wall of a prison and planted “escape tools” on a prisoner – a member of the Red Army Faction – which the secret service wished to frame the bombing on.
(21) A Mossad agent admits that, in 1984, Mossad planted a radio transmitter in Gaddaffi’s compound in Tripoli, Libya which broadcast fake terrorist trasmissions recorded by Mossad, in order to frame Gaddaffi as a terrorist supporter. Ronald Reagan bombed Libya immediately thereafter.
(22) The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him “to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident”, thus framing the ANC for the bombing.
(23) An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author).
(24) An Indonesian fact-finding team investigated violent riots which occurred in 1998, and determined that “elements of the military had been involved in the riots, some of which were deliberately provoked”.
(25) Senior Russian Senior military and intelligence officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings in 1999 and falsely blamed it on Chechens, in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya (and see this report and this discussion).
(26) According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.
(27) The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings.
(28) As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the “war on terror”.
(29) Senior police officials in Genoa, Italy admitted that – in July 2001, at the G8 summit in Genoa – planted two Molotov cocktails and faked the stabbing of a police officer, in order to justify a violent crackdown against protesters.
(30) Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials (remember what the anthrax letters looked like). Government officials also confirm that the white House tried to link the anthrax to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country.
(31) Similarly, the U.S. falsely blamed Iraq for playing a role in the 9/11 attacks – as shown by amemo from the defense secretary – as one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq war. Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that there was no connection, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is “overwhelming” that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime, that Cheney “probably” had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the media was not ‘doing their homework’ in reporting such ties. Top U.S. government officials now admit that the Iraq war was really launched for oil … not 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction (despite previous “lone wolf” claims, many U.S. government officials now say that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror; but Iraq was not the state which backed the hijackers).
(32) Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”
(33) United Press International reported in June 2005:
(34) Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians, as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians.
(35) Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers (and see this).
(36) At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence.
(37) Egyptian politicians admitted (and see this) that government employees looted priceless museum artifacts in 2011 to try to discredit the protesters.
(38) A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat.
(39) The highly-respected writer for the Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that the head of Saudi intelligence – Prince Bandar – recently admitted that the Saudi government controls “Chechen” terrorists.
(40) High-level American sources admitted that the Turkish government – a fellow NATO country – carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government; and high-ranking Turkish government admitted on tape plans to carry out attacks and blame it on the Syrian government.
(41) The former Ukrainian security chief admits that the sniper attacks which started the Ukrainian coup were carried out in order to frame others.
(42) Britain’s spy agency has admitted (and see this) that it carries out “digital false flag” attacks on targets, framing people by writing offensive or unlawful material … and blaming it on the target.
In addition, two-thirds of the City of Rome burned down in a huge fire on July 19, 64 A.D. The Roman people blamed the Emperor Nero for starting the fire. Some top Roman leaders – including the Roman consul Cassius Dio, as well as historians like Suetonius – agreed that Nero started the fire (based largely on the fact that the Roman Senate had just rejected Nero’s application to clear 300 acres in Rome so that he could build a palatial complex, and that the fire allowed him to build his complex). Regardless of who actually started the fire, Nero – in the face of public opinion accusing him of arson – falsely blamed theChristians for starting the fire. He then rounded up and brutally tortured and murdered scores of Christians for something they likely didn’t do.
We didn’t include this in the list above, because – if Nero did start the fire on purpose – he did it for hisown reasons (to build his palatial complex), and not for geopolitical reasons benefiting his nation.
So Common … There’s a Name for It
The use of the bully’s trick is so common that it was given a name hundreds of years ago.
“False flag terrorism” is defined as a government attacking its own people, then blaming others in order to justify going to war against the people it blames. Or as Wikipedia defines it:
U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.
The term comes from the old days of wooden ships, when one ship would hang the flag of its enemy before attacking another ship. Because the enemy’s flag, instead of the flag of the real country of the attacking ship, was hung, it was called a “false flag” attack.
Indeed, this concept is so well-accepted that rules of engagement for naval, air and land warfare all prohibit false flag attacks.
Leaders Throughout History Have Acknowledged False Flags
Leaders throughout history have acknowledged the danger of false flags:
“A history of false flag attacks used to manipulate the minds of the people! “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche
“Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death”. – Adolph Hitler
“Why of course the people don’t want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
– Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.
“The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened”. – Josef Stalin”

THIS IS ONE YOU MUST READ!!!

BINGO!! TOOK ME A WHILE TO PUT IT ALL TOGETHER… NOW IT ALL MAKES SENSE…. THIS IS A LONG LONG READ. IF IT MAKES SENSE TO YOU..SHARE IT! PLEASE COMMENT TOO.. I VALUE YOUR INPUT!

Why is Obama so vehement about bombing Syria?

Why are the Arabs so keen to get rid of Assad?

Why are they willing to pay the US to make our Military into a mercenary force?

Why is Russia so keen of helping a non player like Assad?

READ THIS AND YOU WILL GET IT…

ITS ABOUT ..MONEY AND OIL AND WHO GETS THE PROFITS FROM IT!!

Here is a rhetorical question to ask….Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria? The answer revolves, as usually is the case in the Middle East, around an oil pipeline and the money.

Here are some additional perspectives.

Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won’t let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria? Of course. Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe.

And as we asked last week, why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been “jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime”? Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region.

On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons. One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom.

Now Obama is getting directly involved in the conflict with direct ordesr from his handlers the SAUDI’S. If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia. This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all. ( DUH!!! ) But if Obama gets it done he has a HUGE HUGE commission coming after his retirement or ejection from America!

It has been common knowledge that Qatar has desperately wanted to construct a natural gas pipeline that will enable it to get natural gas to Europe for a very long time.

The article was found from 2009…

“Qatar has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world’s biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious programme to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).

“We are eager to have a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey,” Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, said last week, following talks with the Turkish president Abdullah Gul and the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the western Turkish resort town of Bodrum. “We discussed this matter in the framework of co-operation in the field of energy. In this regard, a working group will be set up that will come up with concrete results in the shortest possible time,” he said, according to Turkey’s Anatolia news agency.

Other reports in the Turkish press said the two states were exploring the possibility of Qatar supplying gas to the strategic Nabucco pipeline project, which would transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia. A Qatar-to-Turkey pipeline might hook up with Nabucco at its proposed starting point in eastern Turkey. Last month, Mr Erdogan and the prime ministers of four European countries signed a transit agreement for Nabucco, clearing the way for a final investment decision next year on the EU-backed project to reduce European dependence on Russian gas. NOW THAT’S WHERE THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THEIR SPECIAL INTERESTS COME IN.

“For this aim, I think a gas pipeline between Turkey and Qatar would solve the issue once and for all,” Mr Erdogan added, according to reports in several newspapers. The reports said two different routes for such a pipeline were possible. One would lead from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq to Turkey. The other would go through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey. It was not clear whether the second option would be connected to the Pan-Arab pipeline, carrying Egyptian gas through Jordan to Syria. That pipeline, which is due to be extended to Turkey, has also been proposed as a source of gas for Nabucco.

Based on production from the massive North Field in the Gulf, Qatar has established a commanding position as the world’s leading LNG exporter. It is consolidating that through a construction programme aimed at increasing its annual LNG production capacity to 77 million tonnes by the end of next year, from 31 million tonnes last year. However, in 2005, the emirate placed a moratorium on plans for further development of the North Field in order to conduct a reservoir study.

THATS THE REASON WHY OBAMA HAS BLOCKED THE KEYSTONE PROJECT AND BLOCKED ANY FRACKING, SHALE EXPLORATION IN THE US.. ITS OK FOR THE REST OF THE WORLD>…BUT AWFUL FOR THE US.

SAUDI ARABIA EVEN WENT TO WORK IN THE PROPAGANDA WAR FUNDING THE CORNY MATT DAMON MOVIUE ABOUT FRACKING. Called “Promised Land”, or.

Last week, the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation pointed out that in the trailer for film, one of the financial backers listed is Image Nation Abu Dhabi.

Image Nation Abu Dhabi is, in turn, owned by Abu Dhabi Media – a state media company for the United Arab Emirates. The UAE, an OPEC member, is the world’s third-largest oil exporter.

As you just read, there were two proposed routes for the pipeline. Unfortunately for Qatar, Saudi Arabia said no to the first route and Syria said no to the second route. The following is from an absolutely outstanding article in the Guardian…

In 2009 – the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria – Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter’s North field, contiguous with Iran’s South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets – albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad’s rationale was “to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe’s top supplier of natural gas.”

Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 – just as Syria’s civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo – and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a “direct slap in the face” to Qatar’s plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that “whatever regime comes after” Assad, it will be “completely” in Saudi Arabia’s hands and will “not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports”, according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.

If Qatar is able to get natural gas flowing into Europe, that will be a significant blow to Russia. So the conflict in Syria is actually much more about a pipeline than it is about the future of the Syrian people. In a recent article, Paul McGuire summarized things quite nicely…

The Nabucco Agreement was signed by a handful of European nations and Turkey back in 2009. It was an agreement to run a natural gas pipeline across Turkey into Austria, bypassing Russia again with Qatar in the mix as a supplier to a feeder pipeline via the proposed Arab pipeline from Libya to Egypt to Nabucco (is the picture getting clearer?). The problem with all of this is that a Russian backed Syria stands in the way.

Qatar would love to sell its LNG to the EU and the hot Mediterranean markets. The problem for Qatar in achieving this is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have already said “NO” to an overland pipe cutting across the Land of Saud. The only solution for Qatar if it wants to sell its oil is to cut a deal with the U.S.

Recently Exxon Mobile and Qatar Petroleum International have made a $10 Billion deal that allows Exxon Mobile to sell natural gas through a port in Texas to the UK and Mediterranean markets. Qatar stands to make a lot of money and the only thing standing in the way of their aspirations is Syria.

The US plays into this in that it has vast wells of natural gas, in fact the largest known supply in the world. There is a reason why natural gas prices have been suppressed for so long in the US. This is to set the stage for US involvement in the Natural Gas market in Europe while smashing the monopoly that the Russians have enjoyed for so long. What appears to be a conflict with Syria is really a conflict between the U.S. and Russia! THAT IS WHY OBAMA IS RACING TO TRY AND CONVERT AMERICA INTO A SOCIALIST OLIGARCHY SO THAT HIS CABAL CAN HAVE CONTROL OVER THIS HUGE RESERVE.

The main cities of turmoil and conflict in Syria right now are Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. These are the same cities that the proposed gas pipelines happen to run through. Qatar is the biggest financier of the Syrian uprising, having spent over $3 billion so far on the conflict. The other side of the story is Saudi Arabia, which finances anti-Assad groups in Syria. The Saudis do not want to be marginalized by Qatar; thus they too want to topple Assad and implant their own puppet government, one that would sign off on a pipeline deal and charge Qatar for running their pipes through to Nabucco.

Yes, I know that this is all very complicated.

But no matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no reason for the United States to be getting involved in this conflict.

If the U.S. does get involved, we will actually be helping al-Qaeda terrorists that behead mothers and their infants…

Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria have beheaded all 24 Syrian passengers traveling from Tartus to Ras al-Ain in northeast of Syria, among them a mother and a 40-days old infant.

Gunmen from the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Levant stopped the bus on the road in Talkalakh and killed everyone before setting the bus on fire.

Is this really who we want to be “allied” with?

And of course once we strike Syria, the war could escalate into a full-blown conflict very easily.

If you believe that the Obama administration would never send U.S. troops into Syria, you are just being naive. In fact, according to Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, the proposed authorization to use military force that has been sent to Congress would leave the door wide open for American “boots on the ground”…

The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad. It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force. It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets. Its main limit comes on the purposes for which force can be used.

Four points are worth making about these purposes.

First, the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force “in connection with” the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It does not limit the President’s use force to the territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force must have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict. Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war.).

Second, the use of force must be designed to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of WMDs “within, to or from Syria” or (broader yet) to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.”

Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive authority to determine when these criteria are satisfied (“as he determines to be necessary and appropriate”).

Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no procedural restrictions on the President’s powers (such as a time limit).

I think this AUMF has much broader implications than Ilya Somin described. Some questions for Congress to ponder:

(1) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to take sides in the Syrian Civil War, or to attack Syrian rebels associated with al Qaeda, or to remove Assad from power? Yes, as long as the President determines that any of these entities has a (mere) connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and that the use of force against one of them would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons. It is very easy to imagine the President making such determinations with regard to Assad or one or more of the rebel groups.

(2) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to use force against Iran or Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon? Again, yes, as long as the President determines that Iran or Hezbollah has a (mere) a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and the use of force against Iran or Hezbollah would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.

Would you like to send your own son or your own daughter to fight in Syria just so that a natural gas pipeline can be built?

What the United States should be doing in this situation is so obvious that even the five-year-old grandson of Nancy Pelosi can figure it out…

In the end, how much American blood will be spilled over a stupid natural gas pipeline and Retirement MONEY for Obama and all those who support him like his Cabal and other Rino’s like McCain, Graham and others. THERE IS HUGE MONEY INVOLVED… WE ARE TALKING HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS…. AND FOR THAT KIND OF MONEY OUR MILITARY AND WE TAX PAYERS ARE THE PAWNS!!

ITS THE OLD YOU SCRATCH MY BACK.. AND I’LL SCRATCH YOURS ROUTINE…

ITS PLAYED OUT ON A DAILY BASIS IN THE MIDDLE EAST.. IN FACT ITS THEIR WAY OF LIFE!!!

The above article explained WHY,

The one below covers the options for HOW!

WND EXCLUSIVE

OBAMA EMPLOYING THINK-TANK PLAN TO OUST ASSAD?

Critics warn of war doctrine that threatens national sovereignty

Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., is a WND senior staff reporter. He has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers “The Obama Nation” and “Unfit for Command.” Corsi’s latest book is the forthcoming “What Went Wrong?: The Inside Story of the GOP Debacle of 2012 … And How It Can Be Avoided Next Time.”

NEW YORK – The Obama administration’s proposal to attack Syria appears to have been outlined in a Brookings Institution report published in March 2012 that contemplated a range of options to destabilize Syria and depose the government of Bashar al-Assad.

The plan included launching limited military attacks and supporting the Free Syria Army as the group of choice among the various “rebel” forces dominated by al-Qaida, the Muslim Brotherhood and radical Islamic mercenaries from around the region.

Authored by four Brookings Institution-affiliated authors, the report said the “brutal regime of Bashar al-Asad (sic) is employing its loyal military forces and sectarian thugs to crush the opposition and reassert its tyranny.”

The authors’ underlying justification for removing the Assad regime was that it was engaging in acts of violence against civilians that violated international standards of human rights.

The memo, however, made clear that the real gain to be achieved in toppling Assad was not the humanitarian protection of the Syrian population but the removal from the Middle East of “Iran’s oldest and most important ally in the Arab world.” The report characterized the Assad regime as “a longtime supporter” of terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas that has “at times aided al-Qa’ida terrorists and former regime elements in Iraq.”

The memo’s characterization of U.S. foreign policy goals has prompted critics to charge it presented humanitarian concerns couched in the doctrine of “responsibility to protect,” a U.N. initiative asserting sovereignty is a responsibility, not a right, and the international community, therefore, has a right to ensure nations protect their populations from genocide, war crime, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.

The critics see the plan as a pretext designed to cover the real goal of destabilizing Syria to depose the Assad regime. The plan would provide weapons to rebel groups, combined with U.S. air attacks and the possibility of a U.S.-backed, internationally configured military invasion with ground troops.

The memo cautioned, however, that actually ousting Assad “will not be easy.”

“Although the Obama administration has for months called for Asad to go, every policy option to remove him is flawed, and some could even make the situation worse – seemingly a recipe for inaction. Doing nothing, however, means standing by while Asad murders his own people and Syria plunges into civil war and risks becoming a failed state.”

Even after acknowledging the Free Syrian Army, or FSA, “is more a brand than a meaningful, united force,” the Brookings Institution memo proceeded on the premise the FSA is the rebel force the Obama administration should champion.

The memo proposed six strategies the U.S. “should consider to achieve Asad’s overthrow”:

Removing the Assad regime via diplomacy;

Coercing the regime via sanctions and diplomatic isolation;

Arming the Syrian opposition to overthrow the regime;

Engaging in a Libya-like air campaign to help an opposition army gain victory;

Invading Syria with U.S.-led forces and toppling the regime directly; and

Participating in a multilateral, NATO-led effort to oust Assad and rebuild Syria.

The memo stressed that no one strategy was going to be endorsed, although the memo clearly indicates preferences, especially when it comes to evaluating the probability each particular strategy has to achieve the stated policy goal of ousting the Assad regime.

The diplomatic option is discounted as having a low probability of success, because Russia’s protection of the Assad regime makes it unlikely the U.S. could pass a U.N. Security Council resolution in any way critical of Assad.

The effort to coerce the Assad regime by sanctions and diplomatic isolation is also regarded as a strategy with a low probability of success, because it would most likely create a stalemate in Syria between government and rebel forces, which would benefit Iran and Russia.

Option 3: U.S. to support FSA in Syria

The third option, arming the Syrian opposition, is considered to have a greater probability of success, provided the U.S. arms the Free Syria Army.

“The United States and its allies could arm the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and other anti-regime forces to try to carry out regime change on their own,” the Brookings Institution memo specified. “Rhetorically, the United States is already moving in this direction, with repeated high-level statements noting that the United States will not rule out arming the opposition should current efforts fail.”

The memo went on to champion arming the FSA with the following language:

A U.S. or allied-armed opposition could gain victory in two ways: the FSA could defeat Syria’s armed forces and conquer the country, or it could continue to gain strength and dishearten regime stalwarts, leading to mass defections or even a coup that causes the regime to collapse. The FSA would then become the new Syrian army, subordinate to an elected Syrian government, with the mission of ensuring the country remains stable and has protected borders.

The Brookings Institution acknowledged that achieving the result will be difficult, noting:

The FSA, for its part, is currently poorly armed, disorganized, and divided from the broader political opposition movement. To make matters more complex, there is also a deep schism between FSA forces in Syria, doing the bulk of the fighting, and the FSA leadership outside it.

The memo cautioned a U.S. strategy of arming the rebels will also require “coalition strengthening” efforts by the U.S. to better organize the rebels:

Thus, if the United States were to embrace the policy of arming the opposition, a key initial step would be to make the opposition more coherent. This would entail first gaining a better understanding of Syria’s tribal, religious, ethnic, and community structures and their affiliations, and then using money, recognition, and arms as an incentive to push the FSA and Syrian opposition political groups like the Syrian National Council (SNC) to work together. The same tools would then have to be used to push for military integration and a unified command.

The Brookings Institution memo noted the cost and risk to the U.S. of the strategy would be low because the U.S. could avoid putting forces on the ground, and the cost of providing weapons could be represented as being in the millions of dollars, not billions.

The Brookings Institution cautioned, however, that in most cases, supporting opposition forces may foster instability in Syria but not topple the Assad regime.

Option 4: Massive air strikes

Massive U.S. air strikes would supplement arming the FSA.

The memo articulated the option as follows:

The theory here is that powerful American air support could tip the balance in favor of the FSA without miring American ground troops in the fight that will have to be waged for Syria’s cities and mountain fastnesses. In crass terms, the hope is that the United States could fight a “clean” war from 10,000 feet and leave the dirty work on the ground to the FSA, perhaps even obviating a massive commitment to Iraq-style nation-building. Because of the much greater cost and lengthy duration of post-war reconstruction, as well as the obvious unpleasant experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, the potential to relieve the United States from this task appears to be a key selling point for some of this policy’s advocates.

The memo said, however, that the problem was that Assad’s armed forces were already heavily engaged with the population and the opposition across the country, making it difficult to target them from the air.

Option 5: A U.S. invasion

A U.S. invasion was the least popular of the options: “No one currently advocating an invasion of Syria, the four authors of this memo included.”

Yet, the authors suggest the option would work: “Moreover, if the United States is absolutely determined to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians in Syria and/or overthrow the Alawi regime, an invasion may well be the only way to do so – it is certainly the only way that would be guaranteed to do so.”

The authors also expressed concern that if the U.S. were “to kick in the door, to oust the regime,” Washington would then have to commit to long and costly efforts to rebuild Syria after the war.

Option 6: International intervention, the ‘goldilocks’ solution

The international option entails a NATO invasion of Syria, with Arab financial support at a minimum, and the support of the Arab League substituting for an inability to get U.N. Security Council approval.

The Brookings plan may be the origin of Secretary of State John Kerry’s suggestion to the House Foreign Affairs Committee that Arab nations were willing to help bear the cost of military action against Syria.

The memo specified:

The Europeans and the Gulf Arabs have to be willing to pick up much of the tab. As noted above, rebuilding Syria after the events of 2011 and an invasion and occupation will be a major undertaking. Even if the reconstruction of Syria benefits from all the lessons learned in Iraq and suffers from none of its mistakes, it will still be enormously costly and well beyond Turkey’s means. Consequently, even though Turkey would be needed to put up much of the raw military muscle, it would be a mistake to ask them to shoulder the costs of that burden.

The advantage of the international plan, and the reason the Brookings Institution suggested it was “just right,” or “Goldilocks,” was that the U.S. would provide primarily logistics support and a few of the combat components involved in a war against Syria, but not all.

The memo also stressed some of the options “can be considered on an escalation ladder – some should be tried because they are less costly than more aggressive measures, and others should be pursued because they will be a component of a broader effort.”

In conclusion, the Brookings Institution memo cautioned against inaction: “As a final thought, it is always important to keep in mind that failing to act – even failing to decide – is an action and a decision.”

HE’S BETWEEN A ROCK AND A REALLY HARD PLACE WITH NO WAY OUT!

Russia Makes a Fool Out of Obama, Over and Over

The worst has finally happened. It took much longer than expected — nearly two thousand days — but Barack Obama’s foreign policy has finally collapsed, leaving Americans to gape slack-jawed at the smoking ruins. Obama has undermined American influence and honor in ways that will be very difficult to repair.

Writing in the Moscow Times, Russian attorney Vladimir Berezansky plays the funeral dirge. He calls Russia’s granting of asylum to Edward Snowden a “Suez moment.” By this he means that China and Russia have effectively burst the bubble of American power in the same way that the U.S. burst the bubble of French and British power during the Suez crisis. The latter two nations were never the same afterwards, and, Berezansky argues, neither will the USA be after Snowden. Watching Obama’s helplessness as these two malignant dictatorships thumb their noses at America reminds one of nothing so much as the Iran hostage crisis and the Afghanistan invasion, where Jimmy Carter’s presidency ran aground.

Russia went out of its way to snub and provoke the United States and to humiliate Obama. It took the minimum amount of time and gave Snowden the maximum number of benefits available. Russia sent a clear message that it cares nothing for its relationship with the United States, has no fear of Obama’s retaliatory moves, and believes that there will be none anyway. Obama replied by making it clear that he would not impose any tangible sanctions, such as an Olympic boycott, once again handing another easy victory to Putin.

Leon Aron, the dean of American Russia watchers, believes that Obama’s feeble response to Russia on Snowden, canceling a scheduled personal meeting with Putin, was a fatal display of weakness and a national disgrace. Aron points out that Obama could have refused to attend the upcoming G-20 summit in Russia, where the meeting was scheduled, or he could have attended and strongly confronted Putin over what amounts to an act of war against the United States. Predictably, Obama chose to do neither. He’ll attend the summit, sparing Russian face, but won’t meet with Putin in protest, sparing Putin the post-meeting press conference where Obama calls him to account. Instead of punishing Putin, Obama is basically doing him a favor.

Putin did the worst he could to the U.S. on Snowden, and the U.S. responded with maximum softness. Obama’s message to Putin is clear: grab for more. Russian political pundits were openly laughing at Obama’s feebleness.

The Soviet Union hosted the Olympic Games without the Americans in 1980. Nevertheless, everything was just excellent. Even if Washington makes a similar step during the Sochi Olympics, this won’t mean anything unpleasant for Russia. In 1980, the Americans were supported by a number of countries, but now this can’t be replayed, because of the EU’s position, among other things. It looks like, in its desire to sting the Russian leadership, Washington has outsmarted itself in the situation surrounding Snowden. The Barack Obama administration has behaved like a capricious woman.

Of course, Obama never thought he’d need to show any backbone where Russia is concerned, so naturally he’s not ready to do so. His “reset” policy was supposed to turn Russia into a cooperating partner on issues like Snowden, and it has blown up in his face, just as his critics predicted it would from the first.

Russia was happy to sign a nuclear weapons treaty that called on only the USA to cut weapons. When Obama sought a second round that would actually impose some cuts on Russia, Putin told him to drop dead.

No progress whatsoever has been achieved in inducing Iran to abandon nuclear weapons. To the contrary, Russia not only continues to support Iran, but is now helping Iran support Syria, and flouting U.S. policy there as well.

Putin has escalated an appalling crackdown on civil society, which has seen him arrest his leading critic, Alexei Navalny, on clearly political charges and sentence him to five years at labor. America’s moral leadership in Russia has vanished; America has betrayed those who stand for its values.

The most utterly humiliating moment for Obama on Russia, however, has not been on the foreign policy front. Russia recently passed a law making it illegal for any homosexual to act gay in public. This law makes gay Olympic athletes subject to arrest in Sochi, Russia, during the 2014 Winter Olympics scheduled to be staged there. The Kremlin has said it will enforce the measures. This has resulted in a furious backlash. Celebrities from Harvey Fierstein to Steven Fry to Mr. Sulu have openly called for a boycott, and 88 U.S. congressmen have signed a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry demanding action. As a result, Obama faces the lowest moment of his presidency: he must either side with the gays and follow the path of Jimmy Carter into an Olympic boycott, or he must side with his “reset” policy and permanently alienate a key element of his political base. There is no way out.

Everywhere Obama has turned, Putin has been there to stick a finger in his eye. Just like Neville Chamberlain, Obama thought the power of his personality could convert a malignant dictator into a reasonable partner. Just like Chamberlain, Obama’s policy of appeasement has collapsed into humiliating failure, with devastating consequences for future generations to bear.

Ironically, in a recent interview with Jay Leno, Obama didn’t disagree when Leno accused Putin of acting like Hitler on the homosexual question. This equation is percolating throughout the internet these days. Obama’s bitterness at being betrayed by Pooty was palpable. Yet despite acknowledging Putin’s evil, Obama is unable to confront it. He can respond only with confused half-measures that just make the situation worse. This is precisely the problem Obama’s critics were worried about when he took the Oval Office: his total lack of foreign policy credentials left him adrift and unable to recognize that his balloon was losing altitude until it spectacularly crashed.

On internet forums, Obama’s critics have taken to writing his name commencing with the numeral zero rather than a letter, and that just about sums it up. So far, Obama hasn’t even had the fortitude to fire his ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, the architect of the ruinous reset, whose service in Russia has been a Keystone Cops fiasco from the first moment. When Snowden walked into Moscow, McFaul should have walked out.

As Hitler could not have wished for better than Chamberlain, Putin could not have dreamed of more than Obama. The president won’t make the highest American values part of his relationship with Russia, maybe because he doesn’t share them, and he won’t stand up for American values and honor by making Putin pay dearly for crossing them, maybe because he doesn’t care about them.

Two of the Best Explanations of the Federal Reserve System

(which is neither Federal nor reserved)

THAT I HAVE EVER READ!!!

The Federal Reserve is how the elites will be able to rule us and make us part of their new world order! The schematic below explains how all the political and financial machinations work and have worked for the past 100 years!

They will continue to work until we the people say enough!

The article, which is from the book, “The Beginning of The End”, was published in 2010, so the debt figures are grossly out if date, but you should know by now, that we are almost $17 TRILLION DOLLARS in debt and if the 2009 figures made the debt unpayable, you may as well forget about ever paying off the debt that exists now! Read these two explanations to understand what the yokes are that bind us down and the only way we will ever be able to become debt free is to close down the Federal Reserve, tear up our debt to them, which they caused, and give the money making power back to Congress, the way it was set up in the Constitution!

It Is Now Mathematically Impossible To Pay Off The U.S. National Debt

A lot of people are very upset about the rapidly increasing U.S. national debt these days and they are demanding a solution. What they don’t realize is that there simply is not a solution under the current U.S. financial system. It is now mathematically impossible for the U.S. government to pay off the U.S. national debt. You see, the truth is that the U.S. government now owes more dollars than actually exist. If the U.S. government went out today and took every single penny from every single American bank, business and taxpayer, they still would not be able to pay off the national debt. And if they did that, obviously American society would stop functioning because nobody would have any money to buy or sell anything.

And the U.S. government would still be massively in debt.

So why doesn’t the U.S. government just fire up the printing presses and print a bunch of money to pay off the debt?

Well, for one very simple reason.

That is not the way our system works.

You see, for more dollars to enter the system, the U.S. government has to go into more debt.

The U.S. government does not issue U.S. currency – the Federal Reserve does.

The Federal Reserve is a private bank owned and operated for profit by a very powerful group of elite international bankers.

If you will pull a dollar bill out and take a look at it, you will notice that it says “Federal Reserve Note” at the top.

It belongs to the Federal Reserve.

The U.S. government cannot simply go out and create new money whenever it wants under our current system.

Instead, it must get it from the Federal Reserve.

So, when the U.S. government needs to borrow more money (which happens a lot these days) it goes over to the Federal Reserve and asks them for some more green pieces of paper called Federal Reserve Notes.

The Federal Reserve swaps these green pieces of paper for pink pieces of paper called U.S. Treasury bonds. The Federal Reserve either sells these U.S. Treasury bonds or they keep the bonds for themselves (which happens a lot these days).

So that is how the U.S. government gets more green pieces of paper called “U.S. dollars” to put into circulation. But by doing so, they get themselves into even more debt which they will owe even more interest on.

So every time the U.S. government does this, the national debt gets even bigger and the interest on that debt gets even bigger.

Are you starting to get the picture?

As you read this, the U.S. national debt is approximately 12 trillion dollars, although it is going up so rapidly that it is really hard to pin down an exact figure.

So how much money actually exists in the United States today?

Well, there are several ways to measure this.

The “M0” money supply is the total of all physical bills and currency, plus the money on hand in bank vaults and all of the deposits those banks have at reserve banks. As of mid-2009, the Federal Reserve said that this amount was about 908 billion dollars.

The “M1” money supply includes all of the currency in the “M0” money supply, along with all of the money held in checking accounts and other checkable accounts at banks, as well as all money contained in travelers’ checks. According to the Federal Reserve, this totaled approximately 1.7 trillion dollars in December 2009, but not all of this money actually “exists” as we will see in a moment.

The “M2” money supply includes everything in the “M1” money supply plus most other savings accounts, money market accounts, retail money market mutual funds, and small denomination time deposits (certificates of deposit of under $100,000). According to the Federal Reserve, this totaled approximately 8.5 trillion dollars in December 2009, but once again, not all of this money actually “exists” as we will see in a moment.

The “M3” money supply includes everything in the “M2” money supply plus all other CDs (large time deposits and institutional money market mutual fund balances), deposits of eurodollars and repurchase agreements. The Federal Reserve does not keep track of M3 anymore, but according to ShadowStats.com it is currently somewhere in the neighborhood of 14 trillion dollars. But again, not all of this “money” actually “exists” either.

So why doesn’t it exist?

It is because our financial system is based on something called fractional reserve banking.

When you go over to your local bank and deposit $100, they do not keep your $100 in the bank. Instead, they keep only a small fraction of your money there at the bank and they lend out the rest to someone else. Then, if that person deposits the money that was just borrowed at the same bank, that bank can loan out most of that money once again. In this way, the amount of “money” quickly gets multiplied. But in reality, only $100 actually exists. The system works because we do not all run down to the bank and demand all of our money at the same time.

“If the reserve requirement is 10%, for example, a bank that receives a $100 deposit may lend out $90 of that deposit. If the borrower then writes a check to someone who deposits the $90, the bank receiving that deposit can lend out $81. As the process continues, the banking system can expand the initial deposit of $100 into a maximum of $1,000 of money($100+$90+81+$72.90+…=$1,000).”

So much of the “money” out there today is basically made up out of thin air.

In fact, most banks have no reserve requirements at all on savings deposits, CDs and certain kinds of money market accounts. Primarily, reserve requirements apply only to “transactions deposits” – essentially checking accounts.

The truth is that banks are freer today to dramatically “multiply” the amounts deposited with them than ever before. But all of this “multiplied” money is only on paper – it doesn’t actually exist.

The point is that the broadest measures of the money supply (M2 and M3) vastly overstate how much “real money” actually exists in the system.

So if the U.S. government went out today and demanded every single dollar from all banks, businesses and individuals in the United States it would not be able to collect 14 trillion dollars (M3) or even 8.5 trillion dollars (M2) because those amounts are based on fractional reserve banking.

So the bottom line is this….

#1) If all money owned by all American banks, businesses and individuals was gathered up today and sent to the U.S. government, there would not be enough to pay off the U.S. national debt.

#2) The only way to create more money is to go into even more debt which makes the problem even worse.

You see, this is what the whole Federal Reserve System was designed to do. It was designed to slowly drain the massive wealth of the American people and transfer it to the elite international bankers.

It is a game that is designed so that the U.S. government cannot win. As soon as they create more money by borrowing it, the U.S. government owes more than what was created because of interest.

If you owe more money than ever was created you can never pay it back.

That means perpetual debt for as long as the system exists.

It is a system designed to force the U.S. government into ever-increasing amounts of debt because there is no escape.

We could solve this problem by shutting down the Federal Reserve and restoring the power to issue U.S. currency to the U.S. Congress (which is what the U.S. Constitution calls for). But the politicians in Washington D.C. are not about to do that.

So unless you are willing to fundamentally change the current system, you might as well quit complaining about the U.S. national debt because it is now mathematically impossible to pay it off.

***UPDATE***

It has been suggested that the same dollar can be used to pay off debt over and over – this is theoretically true as long as the dollar remains in the system.

For example, if the U.S. government gives China a dollar to pay off a debt, there is a good chance that the U.S. government will be able to acquire that dollar again and use it to pay off another debt.

However, this is not true when debt is retired with the Federal Reserve. In that case, money is actually removed from the system. In fact, because of the “money multiplier”, when debt is retired with the Federal Reserve it can remove ten times that amount of money (and actually more, but let’s not get too technical) from the system.

You see, fractional reserve banking works both ways. When $100 is introduced into the system, it can theoretically create $1000 as the example in the article above demonstrates. However, when that $100 is removed, it can have the opposite impact.

Even if a way could be figured out how to pay off all the debt we owe to foreign nations (such as China, Japan, etc.) it would still be mathematically impossible to pay off the debt that we owe to the Federal Reserve which is exploding so fast that it is hard to even keep track of.

Of course we could repudiate that debt and shut down the Federal Reserve, but very few in Washington D.C. have any interest in doing that.

It has also been suggested that instead of just using dollars to pay off the U.S. national debt, we could use the assets of the U.S. government to pay it off.

That is rather extreme, but let us consider that for a moment.

That total value of all physical assets in the United States, both publicly and privately owned, is somewhere in the neighborhood of 45 to 50 trillion dollars. Of course the idea of the U.S. government “owning” every single asset of the American people is repugnant to our entire way of life, but let’s assume that for a moment.

According to the 2008 Financial Report of the United States Government, which is an official United States government report, the total liabilities of the United States government, including future social security and medicare payments that the U.S. government is already committed to pay out, now exceed 65 TRILLION dollars. This amount is more than the entire GDP of the whole world.

In fact, there are other authors who have written that the actual figure for the future liabilities of the U.S. government should be much higher, but let’s be conservative and go with 65 trillion for now.

So, if the U.S. government took control of all physical assets in the United States and sold them off, it could not even make enough money to pay for everything that the U.S. government is already on the hook for.

The truth is that the U.S. government is in much bigger financial trouble than we have been led to believe.

For example, according to the report (which remember is an official U.S. government report) the real U.S. budget deficit for 2008 was not 455 billion dollars. It was actually 5.1 trillion dollars.

So why the difference?

The CBO’s 455 billion figure is based on cash accounting, while the 5.1 trillion figure in the 2008 Financial Report of the United States Government is based on GAAP accounting. GAAP accounting is what is used by all the major firms on Wall Street and it is regarded as a much more accurate reflection of financial reality.

So needless to say, the United States is in a financial mess of unprecedented magnitude.

So what should we do? Does anyone have any suggestions?

***UPDATE 2***

We have received a lot of great comments on this article. Trying to understand the U.S. financial system (even after studying it for years) can be very difficult at times. In fact, it can almost seem like playing 3 dimensional chess.

Several readers have correctly pointed out that when the U.S. money supply is expanded by the Federal Reserve, the interest that is to be paid on that new debt is not created.

So where does the money to pay that interest come from? Well, eventually the money supply has to be expanded some more. But that creates even more debt.

That brings us to the next point.

Several readers have insisted that the Federal Reserve is not privately owned and that since it returns “most” of the profits it makes to the U.S. government that we should not be concerned about the debt owed to it.

The truth is that what you have with the Federal Reserve is layers of ownership. The following was originally posted on the Federal Reserve’s website….

“The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation’s central banking system, are organized much like private corporations – possibly leading to some confusion about “ownership.” For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.”

So Federal Reserve “stock” is owned by member banks. So who owns the member banks? Well, when you sift through additional layers of ownership, you will ultimately find that people like the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers and the Queen of England have very large ownership interests in the big banks. But there are so many layers of ownership that they are able to disguise themselves well.

You see, these people are not stupid. They did not become the richest people in the world by being morons. It was the banking elite of the world who designed the Federal Reserve and it is the banking elite of the world who benefit the most from the Federal Reserve today. In the article above when we described the Federal Reserve as “a private bank owned and operated for profit by a very powerful group of elite international bankers” we may have been oversimplifying things a bit, but it is the essence of what is going on.

In an excellent article that she did on the Federal Reserve, Ellen Brown described a number of the ways that the Federal Reserve makes money for those who own it….

The interest on bonds acquired with its newly-issued Federal Reserve Notes pays the Fed’s operating expenses plus a guaranteed 6% return to its banker shareholders. A mere 6% a year may not be considered a profit in the world of Wall Street high finance, but most businesses that manage to cover all their expenses and give their shareholders a guaranteed 6% return are considered “for profit” corporations.

In addition to this guaranteed 6%, the banks will now be getting interest from the taxpayers on their “reserves.” The basic reserve requirement set by the Federal Reserve is 10%. The website of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York explains that as money is redeposited and relent throughout the banking system, this 10% held in “reserve” can be fanned into ten times that sum in loans; that is, $10,000 in reserves becomes $100,000 in loans. Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.8 puts the total “loans and leases in bank credit” as of September 24, 2008 at $7,049 billion. Ten percent of that is $700 billion. That means we the taxpayers will be paying interest to the banks on at least $700 billion annually – this so that the banks can retain the reserves to accumulate interest on ten times that sum in loans.

The banks earn these returns from the taxpayers for the privilege of having the banks’ interests protected by an all-powerful independent private central bank, even when those interests may be opposed to the taxpayers’ — for example, when the banks use their special status as private money creators to fund speculative derivative schemes that threaten to collapse the U.S. economy. Among other special benefits, banks and other financial institutions (but not other corporations) can borrow at the low Fed funds rate of about 2%. They can then turn around and put this money into 30-year Treasury bonds at 4.5%, earning an immediate 2.5% from the taxpayers, just by virtue of their position as favored banks. A long list of banks (but not other corporations) is also now protected from the short selling that can crash the price of other stocks.

The reality is that there are a lot of ways that the Federal Reserve is a money-making tool. Yes, they do return “some” of their profits to the U.S. government each year. But the Federal Reserve is NOT a government agency and it DOES make profits.

So just how much money is made over there? The truth is that we have to rely on what the Federal Reserve tells us, because they have never been subjected to a comprehensive audit by the U.S. government.

Ever.

Right now there is legislation going through Congress that would change that, and the Federal Reserve is fighting it tooth and nail. They are warning that such an audit could cause a financial disaster.

What are they so afraid of?

Are they afraid that we might get to peek inside and see what they have been up to all these years?

If you are a history buff, then you probably know that debates about a “central bank” go all the way back to the Founding Fathers.

The European banking elite have always been determined to control our currency, and that is exactly what is happening today.

Ever since the Federal Reserve was created, there have been members of the U.S. Congress that have been trying to warn the American people about the insidious nature of this institution.

Just check out what the Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee had to say all the way back in the 1930s….

“Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.”

Authoritarian, anti-democratic power networks are being re-branded as trendy, philanthropic-style forums

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Infowars.com
May 13, 2013

Eric Schmidt. Image: Wikimedia Commons

The secretive Bilderberg Group is currently undergoing a major transformation that will see it and other high profile networks merge under the banner of Google as the elite accelerates its plan to consolidate its technocratic agenda.

This past weekend, Infowars reporters Paul Joseph Watson and Jon Scobie visited the luxury Grove Hotel in Watford, UK, site of the 2013 Bilderberg Group conference set to take place June 6-9, a clandestine annual gathering of over 100 of the world’s most influential power brokers in the fields of politics, academia, technology, business and banking.

The investigation was prompted by our sources, who advised us to visit the Grove in advance of Bilderberg 2013. This is part one of what promises to be a developing story as the pieces of the jigsaw fall into place backed up by years of Bilderberg tracking and research.

What we discovered was groundbreaking and represents one of if not the most important development in Bilderberg’s 59 year history.

Put simply, Bilderberg is merging with Google under the stewardship of Google CEO Eric Schmidt, a regular Bilderberg attendee. Google’s annual Zeitgeist conference, which has been based at the Grove since 2007, immediately precedes the Bilderberg Group conference by a matter of days.

Backed up by prior research, we were able to confirm in conversations with hotel managers and others that the Grove is now a central base for Google’s agenda to control the global political and technological landscape.

The talk in the Grove is not of Bilderberg, that is barely a footnote, the real excitement centers around Google Zeitgeist, which was described by the London Independent as, “a cuddlier version of the Bilderberg Group, the supposedly shadowy network of financiers that holds a private annual assembly, recast in the image of our new tech masters.”

Bilderberg is indeed being recast as ‘Google-Berg’ – partly because of efforts on behalf of activists to tear away the veil of Bilderberg’s much cherished secrecy, and partly as a means of re-branding authoritarian, undemocratic secret gatherings of elites as trendy, liberal, feel-good philanthropic-style forums like Google Zeitgeist and TED.

In reality, behind the scenes Google is using such forums as proving grounds on which to form the consensus that shapes the globe. We were told directly that the organizers behind the so-called “Arab Spring,” which began in Tunisia and Egypt, which as we have documented is in fact a series of contrived western-backed color revolutions masquerading as organic uprisings, were recruited by Google and subsequently attended the Zeitgeist conference at the Grove.

It’s also well documented that the man responsible for kick-starting the “revolution” in Egypt, which led to the installation of a Muslim Brotherhood dictatorship which the west can now use as a justification for further intervention, was Google employee Wael Ghonim.

Google’s growing influence within both the British and American governments is also well documented. Eric Schmidt was a campaign advisor and a major donor to Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns. He was also reportedly offered the post of Treasury Secretary within the Obama administration. In Britain, Google representatives have met no less than 23 times with Conservative Party officials since the general election in 2010. David Cameron addressed the inaugural 2006 Zeitgeist conference before going on to become Prime Minister four years later. British Chancellor George Osborne paid a visit to Zeitgeist just weeks before he also attended Bilderberg 2011 in St. Moritz, Switzerland.

The crossover between Zeitgeist and Bilderberg has deepened in recent years, with the London Telegraph comparing the power of the Google confab to the World Economic Forum in Davos, “attracting figures of global significance to talk and to network.”

Google is clearly positioning itself to become a force more powerful than governments in controlling and monitoring people’s behavior across the globe through all manner of different means, from cars that drive themselves (and are constantly tracked by a centralized Google database), to Google Glass which is akin to having a Google microchip in your forehead, to Google’s deep involvement in manipulating mass movements through social media as they did in Egypt and Tunisia.

The Grove Hotel is a perfect staging ground for such machinations given its role in World War 2 as a “secret wartime HQ for the London, Midland & Scottish Railway” named “Project X”.

The direction in which this is all heading can clearly be surmised from remarks made by Eric Schmidt himself, who has repeatedly made it clear that he thinks privacy is a relic of the past and plans to turn Google into the ultimate Big Brother that makes George Orwell’s 1984 look like a children’s fairy tale.

“We don’t need you to type at all. We know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less know what you’re thinking about.”

“I actually think most people don’t want Google to answer their questions […] They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next.”

“If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”

“We need a [verified] name service for people,” he said. “Governments will demand it.” (Chinese-style Internet control).

“We know everything you’re doing and the government can track you.”

“We will know your position down to the foot and down to the inch over time…Your car will drive itself, it’s a bug that cars were invented before computers…you’re never lonely…you’re never bored…you’re never out of ideas.”

In numerous speeches, including those made at Google Zeitgeist, Schmidt has outlined his vision for a collectivist, permanently networked world in which individuality and privacy are ostracized and those who refuse to sign up to the new religion of transhumanism are shunned as sub-human savages.

That is the primary agenda now being formulated by Google Zeitgeist luminaries in concert with the Bilderberg Group, which shares many of the same members.

A Busy Time at the Grove

Our source told us that there were “four or five big conferences” coming up at the Grove in May, June and July, but intimated that Google Zeitgeist was clearly considered the biggest, with the 227 room hotel not even large enough to accommodate all the guests and administrative staff required to be in attendance, adding that they had to be put up in London hotels.

Huge temporary structures, watched by security guards, were also being constructed on grounds near to the hotel when we visited. These are set to be used for Google’s ‘Big Tent’ event, which is a more public showcase than their private ‘Zeitgeist’ confab. Whether the facilities will also be used by the Bilderberg Group remains to be seen.

The source emphasized that Grove staff had been told not to disclose any information about the Zeitgeist conference and that Google only released information they wanted the public to know. However, the upcoming confab was the talk of the bar and both employees and guests were clearly excited about it.

The source said that security for the event was the same as when heads of state would visit and that the hotel was coordinating with “state security” to run the conference, which inevitably means that taxpayer money will be used to fund the operation, as it is admittedly being used to provide security for Bilderberg. He added that the likes of Google and Bilderberg chose the Grove as a venue because security was far easier to provide compared to hotels in London which are surrounded by high-traffic streets.

Bilderberg’s 2013 Agenda

In terms of Bilderberg’s agenda for the 2013 confab, early indications from our inside source have thrown up a number of different issues that will be up for discussion before Bilderberg instructs its members to implement the agreed upon consensus in each of their fields of influence.

Bear in mind that the motivation behind Bilderberg’s scheming can probably best be encapsulated by remarks made by Bilderberg luminary Henry Kissinger which recently came to light thanks to Wikileaks.

“Before the Freedom of Information Act, I used to say at meetings, ‘The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer.’ [laughter] But since the Freedom of Information Act, I’m afraid to say things like that,” said Kissinger.

At least some if not all of the following issues will be discussed and agreed upon at Bilderberg 2013.

– Targeting Iran’s nuclear processing facilities for destruction via air strikes within the next 3 years if Tehran refuses to give up its nuclear program.
– Prolonging the war in Syria by arming the rebels and overturning recent military victories by Assad’s forces.
– The threat of a global pandemic, caused in part by rising resistance to antibiotics, which given the role of some of the pharmaceutical companies represented at Bilderberg in “accidentally” releasing viruses is somewhat rich.
– The manufacturing revolution of 3D printing and ways to control it and prevent the democratization of production.
– So-called “cyber resilience,” which means more state control over the Internet. There is much talk of “Digital Wildfires” – they are scared stiff about losing control over information dissemination.
– Setting up a Ministry of Truth for the Internet similar to that advocated by Bill Clinton. Controlling what can be published on the Internet.
– Advancing so-called “smart cities” that spy on every aspect of public behavior. Installing systems like Intellistreets that record street conversations. Rolling out the landscape of the technocracy.
– The threat caused to social stability by declining living standards and wealth.
– A desperate last gasp move to prevent Britain from leaving the EU and crushing the dream of a centralized European federation.
– More bailouts to prop up the euro.
– Minimal economic growth in 2013.
– Increasing the amount of power obtained by central banks under the guise of “bank reform”.
– Organizing more aggressive powers of tax collection
– Managing a growing credit bubble that threatens runaway inflation in Europe.

We will expand more on Bilderberg’s 2013 agenda as and when more information is obtained from our sources.

View a selection of photos from The Grove, site of Bilderberg 2013 and Google Zeitgeist below.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

This article was posted: Monday, May 13, 2013 at 10:07 am

ACTION IS NEEDED FOR SELF PRESERVATION!

I will keep the information updated whenever “Infowars” posts it! This is worrisome and today I deleted thousands of my emails and closed all of my g mail accounts! Between their allowing, without warrants, any branch of the federal gov to monitor all the emails and making it almost impossible to remove yourself from some of their services, even when you did not ask to join them and now this – merging with a group whose purpose for the past 59 years has been world domination (read new world order) and expressly working on ways to bring the world’s total population down to 500,000 – it became just too much for me! I understand how that newsman felt, in the movie, when he roared “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!”

HERE ARE THE PUBLISHED WORDS OF A FORMER GMO SCIENTIST

AND THEY SHOULD SCARE YOU RIGHT INTO EATING ORGANIC!

Former Pro-GMO Scientist Speaks Out On The Real Dangers of Genetically Engineered Food
Posted by Dave on May 6, 2013

By Thierry Vrain,

I retired 10 years ago after a long career as a research scientist for Agriculture Canada. When I was on the payroll, I was the designated scientist of my institute to address public groups and reassure them that genetically engineered crops and foods were safe. There is, however, a growing body of scientific research – done mostly in Europe, Russia, and other countries – showing that diets containing engineered corn or soya cause serious health problems in laboratory mice and rats.

I don’t know if I was passionate about it but I was knowledgeable. I defended the side of technological advance, of science and progress.

I have in the last 10 years changed my position. I started paying attention to the flow of published studies coming from Europe, some from prestigious labs and published in prestigious scientific journals, that questioned the impact and safety of engineered food.

I refute the claims of the biotechnology companies that their engineered crops yield more, that they require less pesticide applications, that they have no impact on the environment and of course that they are safe to eat.

There are a number of scientific studies that have been done for Monsanto by universities in the U.S., Canada, and abroad. Most of these studies are concerned with the field performance of the engineered crops, and of course they find GMOs safe for the environment and therefore safe to eat.

Individuals should be encouraged to make their decisions on food safety based on scientific evidence and personal choice, not on emotion or the personal opinions of others.

We should all take these studies seriously and demand that government agencies replicate them rather than rely on studies paid for by the biotech companies.

The Bt corn and soya plants that are now everywhere in our environment are registered as insecticides. But are these insecticidal plants regulated and have their proteins been tested for safety? Not by the federal departments in charge of food safety, not in Canada and not in the U.S.

There are no long-term feeding studies performed in these countries to demonstrate the claims that engineered corn and soya are safe. All we have are scientific studies out of Europe and Russia, showing that rats fed engineered food die prematurely.

These studies show that proteins produced by engineered plants are different than what they should be. Inserting a gene in a genome using this technology can and does result in damaged proteins. The scientific literature is full of studies showing that engineered corn and soya contain toxic or allergenic proteins.

Genetic engineering is 40 years old. It is based on the naive understanding of the genome based on the One Gene – one protein hypothesis of 70 years ago, that each gene codes for a single protein. The Human Genome project completed in 2002 showed that this hypothesis is wrong.

The whole paradigm of the genetic engineering technology is based on a misunderstanding. Every scientist now learns that any gene can give more than one protein and that inserting a gene anywhere in a plant eventually creates rogue proteins. Some of these proteins are obviously allergenic or toxic.

I have drafted a reply to Paul Horgen’s letter to the Comox Valley Environmental Council. It is my wish that it goes viral as to educate as many people as possible rapidly. Any and all social media is fine by me. This can also be used as a briefing note for the councilors of AVICC or anywhere else. Thank you for your help. [Original source with replies from Dr. Paul Horgen]

Thierry Vrain
Innisfree Farm

I am turning you towards a recent compilation (June 2012) of over 500 government reports and scientific articles published in peer reviewed Journals, some of them with the highest recognition in the world. Like The Lancet in the medical field, or Advances in Food and Nutrition Research, or Biotechnology, or Scandinavian Journal of Immunology, European Journal of Histochemistry, Journal of Proteome Research, etc â€¦ This compilation was made by a genetic engineer in London, and an investigative journalist who summarized the gist of the publications for the lay public.

GMO Myths and Truths – an evidence based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops. A report of 120 pages, it can be downloaded for free from Earth Open Source. “GMO Myths and Truths” disputes the claims of the Biotech industry that GM crops yield better and more nutritious food, that they save on the use of pesticides, have no environmental impact whatsoever and are perfectly safe to eat. Genetic pollution is so prevalent in North and South America where GM crops are grown that the fields of conventional and organic grower are regularly contaminated with engineered pollen and losing certification. The canola and flax export market from Canada to Europe (a few hundreds of millions of dollars) were recently lost because of genetic pollution. Did I mention superweeds, when RoundUp crops pass their genes on to RoundUp Resistant weeds. Apparently over 50% of fields in the USA are now infested and the growers have to go back to use other toxic herbicides such as 2-4 D. Many areas of Ontario and Alberta are also infested. The transgenes are also transferred to soil bacteria. A chinese study published last year shows that an ampicillin resistance transgene was transferred from local engineered crops to soil bacteria, that eventually found their way into the rivers. The transgenes are also transferred to humans. Volunteers who ate engineered soybeans had undigested DNA in their intestine and their bacterial flora was expressing the soybean transgenes in the form of antibiotic resistance. This is genetic pollution to the extreme, particularly when antibiotic resistance is fast becoming a serious global health risk. I can only assume the American Medical Association will soon recognize its poorly informed judgement.

In 2009 the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called for a moratorium of GM foods, safety testing and labeling. Their review of the available literature at the time noted that animals show serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system. Monsanto writes “There is no need to test the safety of GM foods”. So long as the engineered protein is safe, foods from GM crops are substantially equivalent and they cannot pose any health risks.” The US Food and Drug Administration waived all levels of safety testing in 1996 before approving the commercialization of these crops. Nothing more than voluntary research is necessary, and the FDA does not even want to see the results. And there is certainly no need to publish any of it. If you remember 1996, the year that the first crops were commercialized, the research scientists of the US FDA all predicted that transgenic crops would have unpredictable hard to detect side effects, allergens, toxins, nutritional effects, new diseases. That was published in 2004 in Biotechnology if you recall seeing it.

I know well that Canada does not perform long term feeding studies as they do in Europe. The only study I am aware of from Canada is from the Sherbrooke Hospital in 2011, when doctors found that 93% of pregnant women and 82% of the fetuses tested had the protein pesticide in their blood. This is a protein recognized in its many forms as mildly to severely allergenic. There is no information on the role played by rogue proteins created by the process of inserting transgenes in the middle of a genome. But there is a lot of long term feeding studies reporting serious health problems in mice and rats. The results of the first long term feeding studies of lab rats reported last year in Food and Chemical Toxicology show that they developed breast cancer in mid life and showed kidney and liver damage. The current statistic I read is that North Americans are eating 193 lbs of GMO food on average annually. That includes the children I assume, not that I would use that as a scare tactic. But obviously I wrote at length because I think there is cause for alarm and it is my duty to educate the public.

One argument I hear repeatedly is that nobody has been sick or died after a meal (or a trillion meals since 1996) of GM food. Nobody gets ill from smoking a pack of cigarette either. But it sure adds up, and we did not know that in the 1950s before we started our wave of epidemics of cancer. Except this time it is not about a bit of smoke, it’s the whole food system that is of concern. The corporate interest must be subordinated to the public interest, and the policy of substantial equivalence must be scrapped as it is clearly untrue.

Thierry Vrain, Former research scientist for Agriculture Canada and now promoting awareness of the dangers of genetically modified foods.

IT GETS BETTER!

During the gay marriage media blitz our elected traitors snuck through “The Monsanto Protection Act” as part of another bill! This is Congress’ favorite tactic to get what they want done – amend a bill that has a great chance of passing! They passed it through and it was signed into law by the occupant of the White House!

To put it bluntly we were screwed!

Monsanto is now untouchable!!!

Keep in mind that all of the GMO engineering is part of the elites’ plan to depopulate the world!

Their ideal population numbers are 500,000 million world wide!

An easy way to eliminate large numbers of the population is through diseases, hence the push with GMO’s, vaccinations and all the new mysterious illnesses that keep sweeping through various countries! Once they destroy our health, we will offer little resistance to their world domination plans! We need to become extremely diligent in maintaining our health, because without health nothing else matters!

This week, I had a series of very sobering discussions with my highly-placed source within the intelligence world. The information he provided hit me like a proverbial tons of bricks. It connects everything we are seeing play out across the world, from the economic problems in Europe to the U.S. DHS ammunition acquisition orders and even the “gun control” debate. If you’re like me, you’re looking for clarity, context and focus with regard to all of the events we’re constantly hearing about but seem to lack legitimate explanation. I believe this report will provide the context and clarity we are all seeking, but I must warn you that the picture is not pretty.
Some might be surprised to learn that the fate of America’s economy has already been determined, verified and announced by the Obama White House. Yet, it has received scant attention from the corporate media. In 2011, economist Kyle Bass interviewed a senior member of the Obama administration about its planned solutions for fixing the US economy and trade deficit[ia].The economic agenda: In plain sight

Among the questions he asked was about U.S. exports and wages, but the question itself was not nearly as important as the response he received from this senior administration official. In fact, this single, seven word response clarifies everything, explains everything, and leaves little else to discuss: “We’re just going to kill the dollar.”

There it is, the entire agenda in one short sentence. It explains everything we’ve been seeing domestically and globally. That one statement makes every other question irrelevant, or otherwise answers all economic questions and explains everything. Nothing else matters. I urge you to ponder that statement and all that it implies. Doing so will provide you with the clarity to understand not only what is taking place today, but what is yet to come.

Murder & High Treason

It is important to note the specificity of the word “kill.” Stated in the active voice, it means an unambiguously intentional and deliberate act. The murder of our national currency, the United States Dollar (USD), is the ultimate agenda to be implemented under Obama. To “kill” our national currency will subvert the United States and destroy it from within. This begs a number of questions, including what type of Americans would actually have, as their objective, the destruction of our national currency? To whom do they hold their allegiance, if not to the American people whose life’s work as well as the toil of our ancestors is represented in the form of wealth held in U.S. dollars? Does this make any sense to us, as Americans? The answer of course is “no.”

By its very definition, to kill our national currency is an act of high treason by those engaged in this activity. It undermines the very sovereignty and survival of our nation, and will have a life-changing impact on every citizen in the U.S. It will also impact every nation and the people of every nation on the planet, as the USD is presently the world’s reserve currency. It is an act that should result in the filing of criminal charges against the conspirators, a trial of their peers and if convicted, a death sentence. It’s that serious.

According to my source, we are past the point of no return. We will not be able to stop what is coming, but must be wise enough to prepare and “get out of the way.” The murder plot involving the death of the dollar did not begin with Obama, but he and other conspirators have accelerated the plans, plots and schemes for its demise.

The ultimate objective

The ultimate objective is to implement an international currency in tandem with a system of global governance. The problem is that most people are not thinking large enough, nor do they understand the magnitude of the lie. They are not seeing the larger picture as their focus is diverted elsewhere. For example, they focus on various tentacles of the octopus such as the gun confiscation initiative, the DHS armament acquisitions and economic woes as independent and unrelated events. They are not.

Meanwhile, others continue to adhere to, or even perpetuate the dual party meme of governance, holding dearly to the notion that there is a practical difference between the Republican and Democrat parties. Have we not seen sufficient evidence that they are now of one party acting in concert with each other? They cannot see the collusion and backroom deals, and continue to hope that the next election will finally change the unchangeable continuity of agenda.

Most of the elected officials are onboard with the subjugation of the United States to a global system of governance. Some are actively facilitating this agenda, while others are making nominal objections on the stage of political theater while hoping to earn a seat at the global table. It’s entertainment for the globalists, distraction of the masses, and diversionary fodder for the talking heads in the media.

America has become a captured operation – captured from within. Think of the Vichy French, internal collaboration with the enemy, or softening the ground for a full takeover from within. The takeover of America has already happened, the collaborators have already been installed, and we are now on a path to complete subjugation of a larger global system of governance. If you continue to doubt this, how else would you explain the numerous examples of our dual-party governmental acquiescence of self destruction?

“Signs, signs, everywhere signs…”

Those who are pleased about the new record setting stock-market highs and various other manipulated statistics that indicate our economy is improving will be the most vocal critics of this report and who will attempt to discredit the validity of the information offered here. The more intellectually astute will look beyond the statistics offered for mass consumption not only to identify the deliberately manipulated data, but to understand what is actually driving these false hopes, figures and data. It is a magic show, and many are still captivated by the magicians’ many diversions, failing to realize that we are engaged in a global war while being simultaneously hobbled by enemy infiltrators from within.

One reason we are seeing new stock market highs is the rush to the dollar from other currencies, especially in the Eurozone. Another reason is the monetization of our debt by the Federal Reserve, despite the previous denials of Ben Bernanke and others.

Simply put, the plan by the globalists, or the central bankers and those behind them, is to create this rush to the USD like passengers from sinking ships to lifeboats. Once the lifeboats are filled to capacity, they will be sunk, and the United States Dollar will be completely worthless. As in such a scenario, many will not make it. Many will die from what is coming. The level of evil behind this plan is incomprehensible to the normal human mind.

Russia, China, Syria and Iran

As I detailed in my multiple reports about Benghazi, we are at war with Russia. After removing Qaddafi from power in Libya, the Obama-Clinton black-ops plan was immediately put into action. Benghazi was the logistics hub for arming the anti-Assad terrorists by our own State Department covert operatives who were shipping millions of tons of weapons to Syria via Turkey and other staging areas. Russia was aware of our actions, and through the attack at the CIA operations center in Benghazi by proxy forces, exposed this operation to the world while putting a stop to this operation. It seems that everyone except the Western media reported what had taken place.

The “dirty little secret” that explains why we have not been told the truth about Benghazi is quite simple. The efforts to overthrow Assad from power are continuing, except the arms and munitions shipments are now originating primarily from Croatia. Overthrowing Assad would pose a direct threat to Russia, both militarily and economically. Are we to expect Russia’s Putin to simply accept this without response? No. So what is Russia doing to subvert our efforts? He is waging war against America, striking at the weak underbelly of our economy which is the “oil backed” dollar as identified in Michael Reagan’s article, Building on a Kernel of Truth.

Sadly, the Obama regime is doing nothing to protect us from this asymmetrical war. It’s as if they are allowing it to take place.

Although it was reported in The New York Times, few have paid attention to last week’s meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, but it was an extremely important event in terms of the planned murder of the U.S. dollar. An alliance is being forged between Russia and China to replace the USD as the reserve currency, already severely weakened by the policies of those in power, with a gold backed currency. Russia and China are hoarding gold to levels never before seen, while the U.S. issues worthless paper and digital currency backed by… nothing, save for the “oil-backed” scenario.

While reports do exist that cite the hoarding of gold by China and Russia, they are purposely under reporting their collective reserves. Meanwhile, Americans can’t even get honest answers to the amounts of our own gold reserves held in Fort Knox or the Federal Reserve. Don’t people find this reluctance for audit and inspection a bit curious if not outright suspicious?

The battle is being waged not only by military might but by a currency war. We are “being played” through our military involvement in the Middle East, including our covert operations against Syria at the behest of Saudi Arabia. Unlike Iraq, the war in Syria will explode, turn hot, and we will be engaged in an ominous battle that will quickly expand and turn deadly. Weakened militarily through the policies of the Obama regime, coupled with an already weakened economy, the U.S. will suffer consequences unlike anyone might imagine or is willing to address. It is a recipe for disaster planned and initiated by the global elite behind the central banking system, including those in our own government. We have been set up from within, lied to, and now, we are about to see exactly what this globalist system has in store for not only the United States, but every nation of the world.

It is critical to understand that the take-down of the U.S. will be the result of an asymmetrical war that includes the weakening of our military, our economy, and a direct assault on our ability to keep the dollar as the world reserve currency and protect the free flow of oil and energy to the United States.

Within the last week, China held a surprise naval exercise in the South China Sea. Meanwhile, Russia displayed their resurgent military night in the Black Sea. These exercises were conducted as U.S. military forces are spread thinly across many areas in the world. Is anyone paying attention here?

Just as certain a collapse of the dollar is coming, so will be chaos on the streets of America caused by this plan “to kill the dollar.” The central bankers and the leaders selected to govern each country have effectively used the Hegelian Dialectic[ii] to implement their agenda. Just as stated by George H.W. Bush on September 11, 1990, their predetermined solution of a “New World Order” is being formed before our very eyes. They’ve told us what they are doing, but we have chosen not to listen or failed to understand what was being said.

The U.S. has always been the firewall against the globalists. By their persistence, infiltration of global elitists into our government, and covert subversion from within, we are being led to slaughter. A view from space, looking at the larger picture of events for which many have questions, a clearer picture emerges. There will be some who dare to resist the pillaging of our bank accounts, the erosion of our rights, and the enslavement that comes with the dismantling of America.

The dust clouds visible on the far horizon that watchmen have been reporting for decades can now be seen as an attacking army of barbarians, whose fighters are now on the ladders and cannons are breaching our empire’s outer walls. Who knows how long the inner walls of our empire will survive the next wave of their coming attack.

Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website.

UPDATE – April 13, 2013

the TRUMPET.com

Chinese Premier Li Keqiang (left) accompanies Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard to view an honor guard during a welcoming ceremony outside the Great Hall of the People on April 9 in Beijing, China. Prime Minister Gillard announced during the visit that Australia would start using the Chinese yuan for trade with China. (Feng Li/Getty Images)

Australia to Abandon the U.S. Dollar

April 11, 2013 • From theTrumpet.com Australia chooses a side in the global currency war. More by this author

Australia’s announcement that it is abandoning the U.S. dollar for trade with China is the latest broadside in the global currency war. Starting April 10, Australia and China will no longer use the U.S. dollar for trade between the two nations. For the first time, Australian businesses will be able to conduct trade in Chinese yuan. No more need for U.S. dollar intermediation. This is a significant announcement and key development for China as it continues its campaign to internationalize the yuan and chip away at the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency. Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard made the announcement during an official visit to Shanghai on Monday. She noted that China is now Australia’s biggest trading partner and that the direct currency trading would be a “huge advantage for Australia.” She called the currency accord a “strategic step forward for Australia as we add to our economic engagement with China.” According to HSBC bank, more than 40 percent of small and medium-size Australian businesses that trade with China plan to offer quotes for goods and services in yuan. No longer will Chinese customers need U.S. dollars before purchasing Australian goods. For China, this is a big accomplishment as it works toward its goal of having about a third of its foreign trade settled in yuan by 2015. But for the U.S. dollar, it is more like the treatment the U.S. Eighth Army got at Chosin Reservoir in Korea. This Australia-China currency pact isn’t the only whipping the dollar has taken lately either. On March 26, China and Brazil agreed to cut out the U.S. dollar for approximately half of their trade. Some $30 billion worth of commerce per year will now be conducted in yuan and reals. Brazilian Economy Minister Guido Mantega said the trade and currency agreement would act as a buffer against any unexpected dollar turbulence in the international financial markets. Less than a week later, China announced its participation in the joint BRICS bank initiative. Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa announced the creation of a new development bank that some analysts say has the potential to rival the U.S.-dominated World Bank and European-influenced International Monetary Fund. “Most people assume that the current economic crisis has led to a great strengthening of the power of the World Bank and the IMF, and that this power is largely uncontested,” notes Prof. Geoffrey Wood, who teaches at Warwick Business School. “The proposed BRICS development bank represents an important new development that potentially further circumscribes the influence of these bodies.” America’s other major ally in the Pacific announced last year that it would be curtailing its use of the dollar too. In June, Japan and China began cutting out the dollar in bilateral trade. The initiative was announced as part of a broad agreement to reinforce financial ties between the world’s third- and fourth-largest economies. Similar dollar exclusion deals have been announced by Russia and China, Russia and Iran, India and Iran, and India and Japan. “[T]he free lunch the U.S. has enjoyed ever since the advent of the U.S. dollar as world reserve currency may be coming to an end,” writes popular financial blog ZeroHedge. “And since there is no such thing as a free lunch, all the deferred pain the U.S. Treasury Department has been able to offset thanks to its global currency monopoly status will come crashing down the second the world starts getting doubts about the true nature of just who the real reserve currency will be in the future.” As more nations challenge the dollar’s position as reserve currency it will greatly impact living standards in America. Interest rates will skyrocket. The government will be forced to resort to full-scale money printing to finance its debt. Credit and loans will become unaffordable, collapsing much of America’s consumer economy. Monetary inflation will shoot through the roof destroying the value of people’s savings. And higher levels of unemployment will become a way of life. By jumping ship and swimming to China, Australia may think it will mitigate the worst of the looming dollar war. But eking out strategic partnerships with China comes with a whole set of other risks that are just as deadly. ▪

To put it in polite language – “WE ARE IN DEEP DOO DOO!“

The fiscal tsunami is rolling and no one is paying any attention! Attention has been diverted away by the shenanigans of our elected officials! They can not be called our representatives, because they only represent themselves and their own pocketbooks! Therefore it is up to us to protect ourselves!

NOT LONG AGO THE AMERICAN DOLLAR

WAS THE CURRENCY OF CHOISE

FOR THE WHOLE WORLD!

THINGS CONTINUE TO EVOLVE

AWAY FROM THE USA DOLLAR AS THE WORLD STANDARD!

This will have a huge impact on your checkbook! The American dollar looses value each month the feds continue to print $40 Billion dollars – based on nothing other than desire to continue to SPEND! SPEND SPEND! No country or empire, has been able to avoid the consequences of irresponsible spending for long. The time comes and it is fast approaching, where one has to pay the piper (pay the bills in the vernacular)! The other financial tsunami heading our way is the derivatives market – which all the big banks are invested in – it is another ponzi scheme – based on nothing! When that crashes, there isn’t enough money in all the world’s savings account to cover the staggering amount of paper wealth that will vanish!

Thanks, World Reserve Currency, But No Thanks: Australia And China To Enable Direct Currency Convertibility

A month ago we pointed out that as a result of Australia’s unprecedented reliance on China as a target export market, accounting for nearly 30% of all Australian exports (with the flipside being just as true, as Australia now is the fifth-biggest source of Chinese imports), the two countries may as well be joined at the hip. Over the weekend, Australia appears to have come to the same conclusion, with the Australian reporting that the land down under is set to say goodbye to the world’s “reserve currency” in its trade dealings with the world’s biggest marginal economic power, China, and will enable the direct convertibility of the Australian dollar into Chinese yuan, without US Dollar intermediation, in the process “slashing costs for thousands of business” and also confirming speculation that China is fully intent on, little by little, chipping away at the dollar’s reserve currency status until one day it no longer is. That said, this latest development in global currency relations should come as no surprise to those who have followed our series on China’s slow but certain internationalization of its currency over the past two years. To wit: “World’s Second (China) And Third Largest (Japan) Economies To Bypass Dollar, Engage In Direct Currency Trade“, “China, Russia Drop Dollar In Bilateral Trade“, “China And Iran To Bypass Dollar, Plan Oil Barter System“, “India and Japan sign new $15bn currency swap agreement“, “Iran, Russia Replace Dollar With Rial, Ruble in Trade, Fars Says“, “India Joins Asian Dollar Exclusion Zone, Will Transact With Iran In Rupees“, and “The USD Trap Is Closing: Dollar Exclusion Zone Crosses The Pacific As Brazil Signs China Currency Swap.” And while previously the focus was on Chinese currency swap arrangements, the uniqueness of this weekend’s news is that it promotes outright convertibility of the Yuan: something China has long said would happen but many were skeptical it ever would. That is no longer the case, and with Australia setting the precedent, expect many more Asian countries (at first) to follow in Australia’s footsteps, because while the developed world is far more engaged in diluting its currency as a means to spur “growth”, Asian and developing world nations are still engage in real, actual trade, where China is rapidly and aggressively becoming the world’s hub. More from The Australian: Former ambassador to China Geoff Raby, now a Beijing-based business figure, told The Weekend Australian: “The value of such a deal would be substantial for exporters to China, especially those that import a lot from China like mining companies, as it would remove business constraints including exchange-rate risks and transaction costs.” Businesses, like individuals when travelling, have to pay extra to convert currency since there are different rates for buying and selling. So removing one step also cuts out the cost of paying for such a “spread”. Australia has undertaken significant lobbying for the deal and the direct conversion of the yuan, also referred to as the renminbi (RMB), is identified as a priority in the government’s Asian century white paper. “We have held preliminary discussions with the Chinese government to explore how soon direct convertibility can be practicably achieved,” the white paper says. “We are continuing these discussions, and also exploring other opportunities to work with China to support the internationalisation of the RMB.” Australia’s banks increasingly arrange trade finance through Hong Kong, which has developed a special role as China’s chief international finance centre. Needless to say, China is eagerly looking forward to taking yet another bite out of the USD’s reserve status. New President Xi Jinping, a former Communist Party secretary of Shanghai, is a champion of that city’s development as China’s finance hub, and it is believed that the Prime Minister may fly there to sign the currency conversion deal. Ms Gillard is expected to go on from Shanghai to Beijing, where she will open the third Australia China Economic and Trade Forum organised primarily by the Australia China Business Council, which will be bringing about 100 people from Australia for the event. Participants are likely to include Andrew Harding, Rio Tinto’s new chief executive for iron ore; Warwick Smith, ANZ Bank’s chairman for NSW and the ACT; Australian Trade Minister Craig Emerson and Financial Services Minister Bill Shorten; Gao Hucheng, China’s Commerce Minister; and Gao Xiqing, the acting head of China Investment Corporation, the country’s vast sovereign wealth fund. The ANZ Bank has been a strong advocate of direct convertibility between the dollar and the yuan. Gilles Plante, the bank’s chief executive in Asia, said in a recent report that in the last financial year, China accounted for 29 per cent of all exports and 18 per cent of imports, but the value of that trade denominated in yuan was less than 0.3 per cent. He forecast that cross-border flows of funds would be liberalised “to support Shanghai’s plan to build itself as a global financial centre. At the time the whole world is digging out opportunities from the rise of the yuan, Australia should not lag behind.” It was significant the liberalising governor of the People’s Bank, Zhou Xiaochuan, kept his job during the reshuffle of China’s leadership. He said last year at a conference: “The next movement related to the yuan is going to be reform of convertibility. We are moving in this direction; we need to go further, we will have some deregulation.” Most importantly, to China, Australia will serve as the Guniea Pig – should this experiment in FX liberalization work out to China’s satisfaction, expect Beijing to engage many more trade partners in direct currency conversion. Beijing appears to have chosen Canberra as its partner in this next movement for straightforward economic reasons, as Australia has become China’s fifth-biggest source of imports and thus, the appropriate partner for the march of its currency. Ms Gillard and President Xi Jinping may also during the visit establish a “strategic partnership” between the countries. This will enable Australia to catch up in status with a large range of nations. Why is this so very critical? For the simple reason that the free lunch the US has enjoyed ever since the advent of the US dollar as world reserve currency, may be coming to an end as other, more aggressive alternatives – both fiat, and hard-asset based – to the USD appear. And since there is no such thing as a free lunch, all the deferred pain the US Treasury Department has been able to offset thanks to its global currency monopoly status will come crashing down the second the world starts getting doubts about the true nature of just who the real reserve currency will be in the future. It has been written about in a few financial magazines and the finance sections of a one or two newspapers – but unfortunately, this is another event that people are not paying attention to and for that we will all pay dearly!

I have said it before and I will keep saying it until people start to listen – we have to:

– Get rid of the Fed

(a private international bankers consortium)

– Get rid of the UN

(the enforcement arm of the elite, who want to rule the whole world)

If we ever want to be FREE!

It those two things are not done, then it becomes only a matter of time!

HURTING MOST THE PEOPLE WHO CANNOT AFFORD TO BE HURT!

The real targets of the “haircut” are businesses, entrepreneurs and the middle class

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
April 1, 2013

News that the Cypriot President’s family moved 21 million euros to London days before the bank accounts of his people were looted as part of the bailout deal serves as another reminder that while the media portrays the victims of the Cyprus “haircut” as the mega rich and wealthy Russian oligarchs, the real victims are middle class families and small business owners.

Image: YouTube

“A company owned by in-laws of Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades withdrew dozens of millions from Laiki Bank on March 12 and 13, according to an article published in Cypriot newspaper Haravgi,” reports EnetEnglish.

“The newspaper, which is affiliated to the communist-rooted AKEL party, reports that three days before the Eurogroup meeting the company took five promissory notes worth €21m from Laiki Bank and transferred the money to London.”

In addition, as Reuters reports, “While ordinary Cypriots queued at ATM machines to withdraw a few hundred euros as credit card transactions stopped, other depositors used an array of techniques to access their money.”

Branches and subsidiaries of Cypriot banks in London and Russia remained open while banks in Cyprus were closed, allowing Russian oligarchs and other wealthy depositors to move their money.

When asked about the amount of money that had exited Cyprus before the bailout deal, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble refused to provide figures.

“Perhaps because if he did, it would become clear that the only entities truly punished by this weekend’s actions are not evil Russian billionaires, but small and medium domestic companies, and other moderately wealthy individuals, hardly any of them from the former “Evil Empire,” remarks Zero Hedge.

As Business Insider reports, the fact that the mega-rich – the supposed targets of Cyprus “haircut” – have already removed most of their money from the system means that, “upper middle class/entrepreneur types will feel most of the pain if the Cyprus tax is enacted.”

In other words, the very engine of the Cypriot economy, the businesses and the employers, will be the victims of the EU/IMF plundering. Middle class families are also amongst the worst affected. The Telegraph recently reported on a family who sold their villa in Cyprus for 200,000 euros right before the “haircut” was announced only to see the desperately needed cash disappear.

As we highlighted last week, a screenshot from an online bank account belonging to a medium-sized IT business in Cyprus shows over 720,000 euros in “blocked funds.” According to the owner, 80 per cent of that will be swiped and what’s left will take 6 to 7 years to get back.

After an initial attempt to plunder around 10 per cent of savings was rejected after a huge public outcry, Bank of Cyprus depositors now face losing up to 60% of their money, with Cyprus’s financial minister Michalis Sarris warning the “haircut” could even be as much as 80%.

However, since the theft has been characterized by the media as merely targeting rich Russian oligarchs and other wealthy investors, the uproar has diminished.

In reality, the mega-rich managed to get their money out either before the crisis even started or during the so-called “bank holiday” period while middle class depositors were left stranded.

Given that the looting of bank accounts has now been established as the template for future “bank recapitalizations” across Europe as well as Canada, the middle class has now been permanently put in the crosshairs and will be expected to pay for bankers’ gambling losses with their savings on a regular basis.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

This article was posted: Monday, April 1, 2013 at 6:14 am

AND THE MONEY WOES CONTINUE TO PILEUP!

What is happening in countries around the world is important here, because the banksters have the same plans already in place, to be used here (see previous article “Crummy Banksters’ Plan In Place For America!”)! The main stream media , like good little lap dogs, are reporting very few of the events and certainly not explaining what it all means for the average American! You need to do your own research and prepare for the meltdown, as best as you can!

Next is another extension of the Cyprus crises – the affects in Russia! Russia was heavily invested in Cyprus – it was for them, like the offshore banks are for American companies and well heeled investors! We will see if they maintain their cool and calm demeanor through the 60% theft of savings above 100,000 EU!

Cyprus crisis: Moscow will not bail out Russian savers

The Russian government says it will not compensate Russian savers who have lost money in the Cyprus banking crisis.

Russians are believed to have billions of euros in Cypriot accounts and deposits above 100,000 euros (£84,300; $128,200) in the two biggest banks could be reduced by as much as 60%.

Such losses would be “a great shame”, First Deputy PM Igor Shuvalov said, “but the Russian government won’t take any action in that situation”.

Cyprus now restricts cash withdrawals.

A 10bn-euro bailout from the EU and IMF – required to keep the debt-laden Cypriot economy afloat – will only be granted if Cyprus itself raises 5.8bn euros, most of which looks likely to come from depositors with more than 100,000 euros in Bank of Cyprus and Laiki (Popular Bank).

‘Haircut’ for depositors

Laiki, the second largest bank, is being wound up and folded into Bank of Cyprus, the biggest bank.

Speaking on the Russian state TV channel Rossiya 1, Mr Shuvalov said Russian money in Cyprus included some that had been taxed and some that had not.

He said the Russian government would still look at cases where there were “serious losses, involving companies in which the Russian state is a shareholder”. That review would take place in Russia, and “for this it would certainly not be necessary to help the Republic of Cyprus”, he said.

Continue reading the main story

Cyprus capital controls

Daily withdrawals limited to 300 euros

Cashing of cheques banned

Those travelling abroad can take no more than 1,000 euros out of the country

Many of the large-scale foreign investors in Cyprus are Russian – and in many cases they have taken advantage of the island’s status as an offshore tax haven. Some politicians have accused Cyprus of acting as a hub for Russian money-laundering – an allegation rejected by Cypriot officials.

After years of large-scale capital flight from Russia there is now a Kremlin drive to repatriate Russian money. The government has introduced tighter monitoring of foreign bank accounts held by Russian state employees.

Bank of Cyprus depositors with more than 100,000 euros could lose up to 60% of their savings as part of the bailout, officials say.

The central bank says 37.5% of holdings over 100,000 euros will become shares.

Up to 22.5% will go into a fund attracting no interest and may be subject to further write-offs.

The other 40% will attract interest – but this will not be paid unless the bank performs well.

The fear is that once the unprecedented capital controls – which are in place for an indefinite time – are lifted, the wealthiest will rush to move their deposits abroad, the BBC’s Mark Lowen reports from Nicosia.

Cyprus has become the first eurozone member country to bring in capital controls to prevent a torrent of money leaving the island and credit institutions collapsing.

Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades has said the financial situation has been “contained” following the deal.

He has also stressed that Cyprus has no intention of leaving the euro, stressing that “in no way will we experiment with the future of our country”.

Australia and New Zealand have also joined in the thievery, although it is minimal, to date!

With Cyprus the banksters found out that they can get away with outright robbery –

CHECK IT OUT!

Take a look at the Pages
"Hot Off The Press"
" Here Is The Latest"
For present day events!
The pages are listed across the top of the blog, under the Liberty picture!
CLICK on the title to view the page!